Quote:Original post by ZipsterWhat if a beaver wants to remove that tree to build his own house? Why is there a double standard? You are highly likely to replant your own trees on your property after building your house, while the beaver cannot do such a thing. Trees are a renewable resource. Everything us humans do is natural. We take from the earth and build stuff for our own uses, just like everything else.
For instance, if I want to build a house and there's a small tree in the way, am I going to be taken to court if I remove the tree and someone catches me?
On Granting Inalienable Rights to Nature
Clearly the key will be to train certain parts of nature to destroy the parts of nature that you don't like. For example: Have a tree in the way? Sounds like you need a trained elephant to push it over, 'accidentally'!
Seriously though, this is pretty bad if for no other reason than it is vague to the point of being both uniformly enforceable to prohibit virtually any action, and to allow nearly anything short of flash burning all of "nature". Also, it doesn't seem to be the sort of foundational legal thing that should be in a constitution, and would better be placed in the legal structure of other laws.
Seriously though, this is pretty bad if for no other reason than it is vague to the point of being both uniformly enforceable to prohibit virtually any action, and to allow nearly anything short of flash burning all of "nature". Also, it doesn't seem to be the sort of foundational legal thing that should be in a constitution, and would better be placed in the legal structure of other laws.
Rights granted to nature demeans rights granted to human beings, if you ask me. What it really says is "Human beings are not by default more important than their surroundings." I assume that the killing of animals for nourishment will be out of the question.
Author
As with any declaration of rights, there are inevitable conflicts between rights. That's one reason why judges exist, to work through those conflicts. When it comes to situations where nature intrudes on private property, I think it's important to note what the articles say about the State and it's obligations.
I disagree. Rights restrain governments and human activity. Granting them to nature doesn't demean human rights. What demeans human rights are gross violations of them - torture, indefinite detention, organ harvesting, and so on. What granting rights to nature says is that human beings recognize that they are dependent on nature and their surroundings for their own survival. As I see it, these rights do not rule out killing animals for consumption: Art. 5. The persons, people, communities and nationalities will have the right to benefit from the environment and form natural wealth that will allow wellbeing.
Quote:Silvermyst
Rights granted to nature demeans rights granted to human beings, if you ask me. What it really says is "Human beings are not by default more important than their surroundings." I assume that the killing of animals for nourishment will be out of the question.
I disagree. Rights restrain governments and human activity. Granting them to nature doesn't demean human rights. What demeans human rights are gross violations of them - torture, indefinite detention, organ harvesting, and so on. What granting rights to nature says is that human beings recognize that they are dependent on nature and their surroundings for their own survival. As I see it, these rights do not rule out killing animals for consumption: Art. 5. The persons, people, communities and nationalities will have the right to benefit from the environment and form natural wealth that will allow wellbeing.
Quote:Original post by LessBread
As I see it, these rights do not rule out killing animals for consumption: Art. 5. The persons, people, communities and nationalities will have the right to benefit from the environment and form natural wealth that will allow wellbeing.
Except where its decided that Artical 4 could direct the state to protect even animals humans use for food under Artical 1. As you said its up to the courts to decide the interpretation...the right court + the right lawyer + the right arguement could mean you may never eat Cow, Chicken, or Pig again. Could also mean you may never eat corn, wheat, Broccoli either...Not that it is likely to happen in the near future, but the potential is there none the less.
But as I said the core idea of it is pretty sound, and it will be interesting to see it develop. But I don't think the US is ready for such an amendment as it would lay a minefield of unintended consequences.
Author
Quote:Original post by MSWQuote:Original post by LessBread
As I see it, these rights do not rule out killing animals for consumption: Art. 5. The persons, people, communities and nationalities will have the right to benefit from the environment and form natural wealth that will allow wellbeing.
Except where its decided that Artical 4 could direct the state to protect even animals humans use for food under Artical 1. As you said its up to the courts to decide the interpretation...the right court + the right lawyer + the right arguement could mean you may never eat Cow, Chicken, or Pig again. Could also mean you may never eat corn, wheat, Broccoli either...Not that it is likely to happen in the near future, but the potential is there none the less.
But as I said the core idea of it is pretty sound, and it will be interesting to see it develop. But I don't think the US is ready for such an amendment as it would lay a minefield of unintended consequences.
Art. 4. The State will apply precaution and restriction measures in all the activities that can lead to the extinction of species, the destruction of the ecosystems or the permanent alteration of the natural cycles.
Yes, the potential is there. It depends on the degree that eating cows, chickens, pigs, corn, wheat, and broccoli leads to the extinction of species or the destruction of ecosystems. If those activities can have that kind of impact, should people be allowed to engage in them at will? I think not.
I don't think the hindrance to adopting such an approach in the United States is fear of unintended consequences but flat out lack of concern for nature by entrenched and very powerful interests.
Quote:Original post by LessBread
Art. 4. The State will apply precaution and restriction measures in all the activities that can lead to the extinction of species, the destruction of the ecosystems or the permanent alteration of the natural cycles.
Yes, the potential is there. It depends on the degree that eating cows, chickens, pigs, corn, wheat, and broccoli leads to the extinction of species or the destruction of ecosystems. If those activities can have that kind of impact, should people be allowed to engage in them at will? I think not.
You overlooked the permanent alteration of the natural cycles bit.
Quote:
I don't think the hindrance to adopting such an approach in the United States is fear of unintended consequences but flat out lack of concern for nature by entrenched and very powerful interests.
Do you realise that such an amendment grants rights to not only those cows, pigs, chickens, corn, wheat, and broccoli...but to a fetus as well?
Which works better for you? Laws targeting those entrenched powerful intrests for thier lack of enviromental concern?...Or a sweeping amendment that could unintentialy provide legal fuel for groups like PETA, Gaians and even Pro-Lifers?
Quote:Original post by EmptyVoid
Interesting idea but there will be people who will unquestionably abuse it.
Sure.Hanters ,which right now kills Siberian tigers,for example.Such tiger's fell costs a huge money, especially in China.I don't know,what official peoples says,but I know common peoples opinion-such illegal hanters must be captured and killed in place. Very simple-illegal hunters shoot at foresters,
as usual, but foresters have machine guns...Tayga-this is a such big forest,
like US territory:)And all hanters must know about it.
Human rights? Well,I read posts here-it's amazing mix of constitution articles,human rights and chicken.
But we all have and duty too.We must keep biosphere for NEXT GENERATIONS.
Life-it isn't a living beings, it's process.We must keep process,not chicken.
And protect rights of next generations -to see tigers.
[Edited by - Krokhin on September 8, 2008 1:00:07 AM]
Quote:Original post by KrokhinQuote:Original post by EmptyVoid
Interesting idea but there will be people who will unquestionably abuse it.
Sure.Hanters ,which right now kills Syberian tigers,for example.Such tiger's fell costs a huge money, especially in China.I don't know,what official peoples says,but I know common peoples opinion-such illegal hanters must be captured
and killed in place.
Human rights? Well,I read posts here-it's amazing mix of constitution
articles,human rights and chicken.
But we all have and duty too.We must keep biosphere for NEXT GENERATIONS.
Life-it isn't a living beings, it's process.We must keep process,not chicken.
This post reminds me of RSC_X :P
I'd make a much more condensed article which says something like this and covers all the bases:
1. The dignity of all life shall be respected and preserved: The causing of unsustainable or unnecessary destruction, harm, pain or suffering is strictly forbidden.
What this implies:
-Executions and the death penalty are illegal
-Factory farms are illegal
-slash and burning of rainforests is illegal
-exploiting animals in a non-humane way is illegal
-abortion of babies is illegal
-institutions which violate basic human rights are illegal
-gulags, forced labor, horrid prison conditions are illegal
...
what this does NOT mean:
-cutting down tree's for lumber is illegal
-hunting animals is illegal
-butchering animals or using them for sustenance is illegal
-mowing your lawn is illegal
-not thumping your gold fish on the head before flushing them down the toilet is illegal
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
