It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ecuador's Constitution Gives Rights to Nature

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   
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.




posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
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...



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 04:43 AM
link   
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?




top topics
 
0

log in

join