Ecological Personhood (Discussion)

[The Hammer]

Granting legal ‘personhood’ to nature is a growing movement – can it stem biodiversity loss?

The rights-of-nature movement emerged as a response to economic pressures on ecosystems. But the success of projects depends on how well legal liability is defined.

theconversation.com

What are your thoughts on granting Personhood to ecological sites: such as waterfalls, mountains/ranges, cave systems, or even entire ecological systems?


"Many Indigenous peoples have long emphasised the intrinsic value of nature. In 1972, the late University of Southern California law professor Christopher Stone proposed what then seemed like a whimsical idea: to vest legal rights in natural objects to allow a shift from an anthropocentric to an intrinsic worldview."


I think in an age where rapid ecological exploitation and destruction run rampant, and with a legal system that already justifies the concept of abstract entities (a la Corporationa via Citizens United in the US) having legal Personhood, this will allow for the better legal defense of that which has more needs and less of a voice.


"Ecuador was the first country to enshrine rights of nature in its 2008 constitution. Since then, a growing number of countries have followed in awarding rights of nature. This includes Aotearoa New Zealand, where legal personhood was granted to the Whanganui River, the former national park Te Urewera and soon the Taranaki maunga."


This allows persons to take legal actions on behalf of ecological systems, whether or not that person was directly impacted by environmental loss/degradation.


"Ecosystems can become separate entities with their own agency, in the same way other non-human entities such as charitable trusts and organisations can exist as separate entities in law.'


There is a lot more covered in the article, but I thought I'd at least start off the conversation. For those interested feel free to read it.

 

[Heyo]

Granting legal ‘personhood’ to nature is a growing movement – can it stem biodiversity loss?

The rights-of-nature movement emerged as a response to economic pressures on ecosystems. But the success of projects depends on how well legal liability is defined.

theconversation.com

What are your thoughts on granting Personhood to ecological sites: such as waterfalls, mountains/ranges, cave systems, or even entire ecological systems?


"Many Indigenous peoples have long emphasised the intrinsic value of nature. In 1972, the late University of Southern California law professor Christopher Stone proposed what then seemed like a whimsical idea: to vest legal rights in natural objects to allow a shift from an anthropocentric to an intrinsic worldview."


I think in an age where rapid ecological exploitation and destruction run rampant, and with a legal system that already justifies the concept of abstract entities (a la Corporationa via Citizens United in the US) having legal Personhood, this will allow for the better legal defense of that which has more needs and less of a voice.


"Ecuador was the first country to enshrine rights of nature in its 2008 constitution. Since then, a growing number of countries have followed in awarding rights of nature. This includes Aotearoa New Zealand, where legal personhood was granted to the Whanganui River, the former national park Te Urewera and soon the Taranaki maunga."


This allows persons to take legal actions on behalf of ecological systems, whether or not that person was directly impacted by environmental loss/degradation.


"Ecosystems can become separate entities with their own agency, in the same way other non-human entities such as charitable trusts and organisations can exist as separate entities in law.'


There is a lot more covered in the article, but I thought I'd at least start off the conversation. For those interested feel free to read it.

Granting personhood to ecosystems smacks of animism to me. Furthermore, it is a substitute where private people have to sue on behalf of nature.
The right way to do it would be, much as Ecuador has, to enshrine rights for a liveable environment, protection of endangered species or systems and the duty to keep the Earth liveable for future generations in the constitution.
That way, it becomes a function of the state.

I know that it's hard to change or amend a constitution, so the "personhood" may be better than nothing.

 

[SalixIncendium]

What are your thoughts on granting Personhood to ecological sites: such as waterfalls, mountains/ranges, cave systems, or even entire ecological systems?

We can't even get personhood granted to non-human animals. Can we maybe start there and then move to ecological sites?

 

[Secret Chief]

We can't even get personhood granted to non-human animals. Can we maybe start there and then move to ecological sites?

Or do both concurrently?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Granting legal ‘personhood’ to nature is a growing movement – can it stem biodiversity loss?

The rights-of-nature movement emerged as a response to economic pressures on ecosystems. But the success of projects depends on how well legal liability is defined.

theconversation.com

What are your thoughts on granting Personhood to ecological sites: such as waterfalls, mountains/ranges, cave systems, or even entire ecological systems?


"Many Indigenous peoples have long emphasised the intrinsic value of nature. In 1972, the late University of Southern California law professor Christopher Stone proposed what then seemed like a whimsical idea: to vest legal rights in natural objects to allow a shift from an anthropocentric to an intrinsic worldview."


I think in an age where rapid ecological exploitation and destruction run rampant, and with a legal system that already justifies the concept of abstract entities (a la Corporationa via Citizens United in the US) having legal Personhood, this will allow for the better legal defense of that which has more needs and less of a voice.


"Ecuador was the first country to enshrine rights of nature in its 2008 constitution. Since then, a growing number of countries have followed in awarding rights of nature. This includes Aotearoa New Zealand, where legal personhood was granted to the Whanganui River, the former national park Te Urewera and soon the Taranaki maunga."


This allows persons to take legal actions on behalf of ecological systems, whether or not that person was directly impacted by environmental loss/degradation.


"Ecosystems can become separate entities with their own agency, in the same way other non-human entities such as charitable trusts and organisations can exist as separate entities in law.'


There is a lot more covered in the article, but I thought I'd at least start off the conversation. For those interested feel free to read it.

I think it's a really bad idea. I can see protection status here however.

Look at what happened when 'personhood' was granted to corporations and the effects of that decision where its now completely out of control while the personhood of real people has been degraded and made almost irrelevant and pointless.

 

[The Hammer]

I think it's a really bad idea. I can see protection status here however.

Look at what happened when 'personhood' was granted to corporations and the effects of that decision where its now completely out of control while the personhood of real people has been degraded and made almost irrelevant and pointless.

I'm almost ok with this. Because one is a man made construct gone haywire, and the other a thing that we all depend on for survival. (We could do with or without corporations).

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'm almost ok with this. Because one is a man made construct gone haywire, and the other a thing that we all depend on for survival. (We could do with or without corporations).

I'm glad for some common ground here.

I find ecological preservation is a good thing overall in good reason.

 

[Eddi]

I'm sorry but I think it's utterly bonkers

There are other ways to protect such things

 

[Quintessence]

I'm sorry but I think it's utterly bonkers

There are other ways to protect such things

Hypothetically. In a nation governed by rule of law, however, the most sensible approach (long term) to protecting the rights of other-than-human beings is to grant them legal standing; that is, personhood. Otherwise, the legal system has basically no incentive to consider them as anything other than instruments, things, or objects. And, quite frankly, if this country can grant personhood to something as cringe as a corporation, it is well, well overdue to recognize the other-than-human persons that the indigenous humans of these lands recognized before their lands were stolen from them by colonialists.

 

[Eddi]

Hypothetically. In a nation governed by rule of law, however, the most sensible approach (long term) to protecting the rights of other-than-human beings is to grant them legal standing; that is, personhood. Otherwise, the legal system has basically no incentive to consider them as anything other than instruments, things, or objects. And, quite frankly, if this country can grant personhood to something as cringe as a corporation, it is well, well overdue to recognize the other-than-human persons that the indigenous humans of these lands recognized before their lands were stolen from them by colonialists.

I'm pretty certain a thing such as a lake is a thing and not a person

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm almost ok with this. Because one is a man made construct gone haywire, and the other a thing that we all depend on for survival. (We could do with or without corporations).

Then you should be almost (or maybe even totally) ok with denying personhood to anything that isn't a person. Yes, an immense amount of harm has been done by recognizing corporations as "persons," without having any means at hand to discipline that (fictitious) person. It has always been a very, very bad idea to grant "human rights" to anything that isn't human.

What is more likely to be successful is to teach people just enough science, and just enough philosophy, to allow them to understand their world, and themselves, so they can make appropriate choices for the preservation of the only home they are likely to have for many hundreds (or thousands) of years.

 

[The Hammer]

I'm pretty certain a thing such as a lake is a thing and not a person

Well that's like... Your opinion... Man.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm pretty certain a thing such as a lake is a thing and not a person

Yes, objectification of non-human persons certainly makes it more convenient to treat them poorly. And then whine when all of a sudden the lake stops being so giving and generous. "Dude, why is this water making me sick... all I did was dump my trash in this thing!" Gee, it's almost as if it was recognized as a being or person you might've not just dumped your trash in it like a poor houseguest... heh.

Then again, there are humans who just have poor manners just in general. They'll dump trash in lakes as well as in their own homes and in others yards. Even so, the differential standards for how humans in this culture treat non-human person is pretty darned appalling to me.

 

[Eddi]

Well that's like... Your opinion... Man.

I didn't offer it as anything other than my opinion, man

 

[Eddi]

Yes, objectification of non-human persons certainly makes it more convenient to treat them poorly. And then whine when all of a sudden the lake stops being so giving and generous. "Dude, why is this water making me sick... all I did was dump my trash in this thing!" Gee, it's almost as if it was recognized as a being or person you might've not just dumped your trash in it like a poor houseguest... heh.

Then again, there are humans who just have poor manners just in general. They'll dump trash in lakes as well as in their own homes and in others yards. Even so, the differential standards for how humans in this culture treat non-human person is pretty darned appalling to me.

People treat other people very poorly

I don't see how making a lake a person would make various humans treat it any better

 

[SalixIncendium]

I'm pretty certain a thing such as a lake is a thing and not a person

People treat other people very poorly

I don't see how making a lake a person would make various humans treat it any better

I'm not sure you are understanding what it means to give some being/thing personhood. Did you read the article?

 

[Eddi]

I'm not sure you are understanding what it means to give some being/thing personhood. Did you read the article?

Yes

And I listened to a radio program about it the other week, on BBC Radio4

I think granting rights to a thing such as a lake is absurd

 

[SalixIncendium]

I think granting rights to a thing such as a lake is absurd

Why?

 

[Eddi]

Why?

Because it's basically a hole in the ground that contains a load of water

Lakes are glorified puddles

Yes, they host life

But so too do houses and nobody wants to grant houses personhood

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Because it's basically a hole in the ground that contains a load of water

Lakes are glorified puddles

Yes, they host life

But so too do houses and nobody wants to grant houses personhood

Well, if you start living in a lake as really in it, I will grant you that lakes and houses are all the same, but lakes are different than houses.

Edit: Sorry, but I don't think we should be doing this, because I think it is debatting.