I love nature and I am disgusted at how humans have treated nature in genral. Pollution, destruction of natural habitats and wholesale extinction of
species has lead me to believe that we need to start giving a little back.
But, the following new article in Ecuador's constitution has left me feeling very ambivelent. Are we going to far? In Ecuador, one can sue on
behalf of Nature.
The new Ecuadorian constitution reads:
Persons and people have the fundamental rights guaranteed in this Constitution and in the international human rights instruments. Nature is subject to
those rights given by this Constitution and Law.
Wesley J Smith, is an ardent anti- utilitarian bioethics commentator and he remarks:
Viruses are part of nature. So, too, are bacteria, insects, trees, weeds, and snails. These and the rest of Ecuador's flora and fauna all now
have the constitutional and legally enforceable right to exist, persist, and regenerate their vital cycles.
Link
Link 2
But, is it a good thing? Are whole countries now waking up?
Some are saying yes.
|
I think that having concern for the earth is fantastic and vitally important for everyone's well-being and survival. However, like with all things,
balance is important too. Even in nature, there is a natural pecking order along with survival of the fittest. Yet, somehow, everything seems to
naturally coexist for the benefit of all. That's the circle of life in the natural world.
Nature only takes what it needs. Humans, however, are greedy creatures. In reality, humans do not need the massive amount of territory that we
commandeer for commercial purposes. Just how many shopping malls do we need? Nothing makes me sicker than to drive through an area where all the
businesses have shut down and there's nothing left but a wasteland of broken glass, evidence of vandalism, and concrete. If an area isn't going to
be used why not tear it all down, plant grass and trees in its place, and create a natural habitat? Humans take, take, take more than we need,
decrease nature's habitat, drive plants and wildlife to (or at least near) extinction, and pollute the world with our garbage and often
non-biodegradable byproducts. When we throw things away, our garbage doesn't magically disappear just because we can't see it anymore. However,
that's how most humans live. Yet, when we go on vacation, we want to go to natural places like beaches, woods, lakes, etc.
Ancient peoples were close to nature, lived off the land, and built their homes and everything they needed out of natural resources. It's not lost on
me that the remains of some of the greatest structures in the world are all made out of stone. Given that there is evidence of high technology that
was used in constructing some of those structures, like Puma Punku, why didn't they use that
technology to make lighter weight materials that would have made building their temples, pyramids, and structures faster and easier to build? I don't
think that they were less intelligent than 'modern' humans. In fact, maybe they were moreso in that they recognized the value of the earth and
understood their natural place in it--especially if you buy into the theory (like some do) that our ancestors came here from other planets that were
destroyed via misuse. That being the case, they would have understood exactly what they were doing. IMO, there's a lesson in that.
|
Unfortunate the U.S. didn't set the example, considering we pretty much started the trends on constitutions lol (kidding). Seriously, though it has
start somewhere, and when other countries start to see it paying off for Ecuador; I'm sure everyone will be all over it...
|
I don't know ... imagine a law like this in the USA (where it seems anyone can be sued for anything)
Step on an ant on a pavement by accident, and a person who sees this decides to sue you on behalf of Nature.
Sounds silly, but by the new law, you are guilty of not respecting the rights of nature. What would be the penalties?
|
