• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Laws and nature (1 Viewer)

This was in the comments to the article and summed-up what I thought:

taneagrafika 14m ago

No, they can't--and therefore shouldn't--have rights, because they are not legal persons and are incapable of being held responsible. But that doesn't mean we, who are legal persons, do not have the duty to protect them. But foolishly and needlessly casting the debate in the terms of rights just gives the whole debate a faint air of precious silliness.

In fact, the argument from self-interest is perfectly adequate for establishing our duty to preserve natural habitats. As the world dies, we die, it is just that simple. The reason we have historically been less than trusty stewards of the natural world is that we were ignorant of the many ways we depend on it and can suffer as a result of its degradation (plus the fact that humanity does not possess one undivided set of interests and therefore never acts in unison).

If we can't act when our natural habitat is dying, what makes you think we will act purely on the basis of some ceremonial "right" we assign to a plant? In other words, if the thing that is most important is still not important enough, why should something of marginal importance be enough?
Honestly, these sorts of things are feel-good and ceremonial. The folks who want to spoil and abuse nature (as well as animals) will do so regardless of such a framework because it still depends on a human to initiate the rights of nature (unless Mother Nature herself walks into a law office to talk to counsel). We are the weak link.

Don't get me wrong, the folks involved have their hearts and even their heads in the correct place. But this is purely ceremonial because the hard fights are not being won where it matters.

And goodness forbid here in the USA, where we're collectively (through our leaders) going in the opposite direction. A few states are trying to buck the trend but that's tough and has consequences that could harm us fiscally.

"Fiscally"...one of the top concepts ruining the natural world everywhere.
 
This was in the comments to the article and summed-up what I thought:


Honestly, these sorts of things are feel-good and ceremonial. The folks who want to spoil and abuse nature (as well as animals) will do so regardless of such a framework because it still depends on a human to initiate the rights of nature (unless Mother Nature herself walks into a law office to talk to counsel). We are the weak link.

Don't get me wrong, the folks involved have their hearts and even their heads in the correct place. But this is purely ceremonial because the hard fights are not being won where it matters.

And goodness forbid here in the USA, where we're collectively (through our leaders) going in the opposite direction. A few states are trying to buck the trend but that's tough and has consequences that could harm us fiscally.

"Fiscally"...one of the top concepts ruining the natural world everywhere.

Indeed, it’s not a matter of “rights” but of obligations, ours to the natural world and (thus) to each other and to future generations.
 
The matter is not about lack of laws but about enforcement of laws. Changing nature protection laws into right-based laws does not improve enforcement. Actually it may weaken the enforcement, because it would complicate conservation which requires intervenion (e.g. fitting a tiger with radio-collar) but business and poaching would simply ignore the law.

Besides, the concept of 'wildlife rights' is nonsensical. A right of humpback whales to live or a right of killer whales to eat humpback whales? If wildlife was given rights, then ecological relationships between wildlife would became a legal matter, and courts would expect animals to obey.
 
Last edited:
Looks like the comments about yesterday's Laws and Nature op-ed continue to pile up at The Guardian's website -- 327 after one day.

I do not have anything to add --except this appears to be a hot issue.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top