Nature Is Becoming a Person
foreignpolicy.com
Nature Is Becoming a Person
1–10 of 67 posts
Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person
#2This 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 this monkey with his selfie though:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...
And out of interest, the Illinois Attorney General essentially ruled that I did not fit the meaning of the word "person" under the law because I was a pretrial detainee being held at a county jail, and the rights I was fighting for (workers' comp) only applied to a "person", not to me.
Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person
#3Normally, 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 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?).
Seems to me this "personhood" concept mainly muddies the waters (so to speak) and it would be simpler to pursue conservation ends without it.
Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person
#4This 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.
Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person
#5Normally, 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.
Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person
#6This 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.
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.
Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person
#7Normally, 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.
Plants aren't responsible for photosynthesis. They just photosynthesise. Fungi aren't responsible for decomposition. They just decompose.
Saying they are "responsible" for those things is like saying that a river is responsible for flowing or the Earth is responsible for rotating.
Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person
#8Normally, 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.
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.
Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person
#9Normally, 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…
I think it would be interesting to do away with the concept of legal personhood for everyone. Alabama got rid of marriage, making it a private spiritual thing. Why not atomic identity in self and the few we really WANT to let in?
I can be a socially amenable person without a legal status. We’d still police and service the usual.
The story of “I did this…” is entirely bullshit these days. 5% hunt still. It’s all modern logistics. Why the redundant finance network? How many distributed ledgers do we need?
Even in paper form, the value of currency is coupled to abstract belief in a national identity.
Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person
#10This 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…
[deleted]