Bolivia grants "Earth Rights" to Nature
 

Some good news! Rare these days but this leaves me hopeful. Bolivia seems to be passing extensive environmental protection laws but not as environmentalist laws, but in the shape of "human rights" - in this case "earth rights". Giving the nonhuman world and the indigenous people living within this world the appreciation of fundamental rights is a big step, I can only hope they will hold true to the ideals they put into these laws.

Bolivia enshrines natural world's rights with equal status for Mother Earth | Environment | The Guardian

...wow, that's so exceedingly cool. GO BOLIVIA! :D!

Soon, it'll be where oxygen molecules are given rights too, so we oughta quit breathing.

I really doubt it'll be taken that far :P.

But I can really see why they'd be worried about big business and the environment - they had terrible trouble a few years back, with water supplies being controlled by big companies, who would charge utterly awful prices. It was the inspiration for the Bond movie Quantum of Solace - if my internet wasn't mucking up, I'd try and track down links for you.

Woot go Bolivia! Mother Earth is sacred. XD

While I think helping the environment is good, I don't think giving rights to non-sentient objects makes any sense at all. I guess at the end of the day though as long as they make a difference they can call it whatever they like.

^This. I really don't know what to think about this, except... if it benefits in a positive way that actually means something substantial (that doesn't hinder human productivity or anything), then this is a good idea. However, my instinct is telling me, "This sounds... a little superfluous."

Hey, if the Supreme Court feels it can grant personhood rights to corporations, then Bolivia has every right to grant personhood rights to nature. At least Bolivia's declaration will benefit the greater good in the end (for both humans and non-humans alike:)), rather than just enrich a tiny oligarchy like here in the States.

Way to go, Bolivia! I tip my hat to thee. ;)

Bolivia also believes chicken makes you gay.

I am not necessarily cheering at bolivia in general - they also are crazy in many ways and have their issues, but this particular issue is really great and I cannot possibly see anyone seriously argueing against it. Not in this forum. I had the impression that everone here liked nature, liked the NA'Vi who lived in tune with it and preotected their world of plants and animals. I felt the main discussions of people here were about how this can be done - some think by using technology or by doing social changes or by political actions and some think a lot of things have to go.
If this law works out, it is a very nice example that a society can actively try its best to keep the lifegiving world alive. Maybe their "development" will not be as fast, but better safe than sorry. No everyone has to do the same mistakes Europeans and Americans have done and degrade their landscapes before learning about the value of ecology and environmentalism.

So the only thing that really worries me is that I fear that this may be just a piece of paper....

Simply put, this is just propaganda. I'm Bolivian and have lived here my whole life. What this new regulation will do is to exacerbate the, already high, inflation rates we have, especially in food prices... this has to be the most moronic thing to do in a country that desperately needs to develop to get out of poverty.

Shhh, developed nations are having a "feel good" moment. Don't ruin it with reality.

Exactly this... It's a very weird way to go about it, and it suggests that humans can not adapt to their environment. On the other hand, protection isn't a bad thing... but equating it with humans isn't the right way to go about it.

But to alwaqys put human desires above the needs of the nonhuman world does not really work out either! I think the theory (and sadly it will probably be just that) behind this kind of law is that it is supposed to give them equal basic rights - humans and nonhumans. If humans live in a way that is "in balance with nature", there should be no problem in humans continued living and any kind of development they manage to do while respecting the rights of the nonhuman world.
As I said, I also think that this is mostly propaganda, theory and talk to give the people, especially the indigenous the feeling that something is done - the reality may look different. But at least it is symbolic - the first human rights legislation were also not followed through instantly and took many years.

And even from an utilitarianist viewpoint it makes actually sense to do this, as humans actually need the ecosystems of the Earth to give them food, water, air and a temperate climate.

Pulizer price winning Jared Diamond explains this also in his books and talks, e.g. YouTube - Jared Diamond Interview - that societies who are not finding a balance of their needs and the needs of their environment eventually collapse. In our political world, the way to get to such a balance is legislature and laws, which are how this culture regulates things. Other cultures may have done this differently, by individual wisdom, taboos (the Maori), a deep seated respect or simply a balance of power. In our culture this all does not work, economy is in most cases more important than ecology and as we created a world in which each individual or family struggles to get to the top or at least out of the bottom of the barrel, these pressures do lead to a disrespect of nature and a depletion of the environment. Listen to the Interview or look up some more on Jared Diamond - he also brings into play the Anasazi and Easter Islanders as negative examples but also gives some hope, that societies can actually manage to find that balance. And I think such a law, if acted upon properly, is a step towards that.

I think that ICU and Human No More are right, one of the most hilarious and infamous things that come out of Evo's government is to give inanimate objects a status that never will reach. For example, our Chancellor stated a couple of years ago that (I doubt about seriously!!! LOL) that stones have sex. That there are stone-mothers, stone-fathers, stone-children and so on... Which is of course ridiculous. No sane person will ever argue against conservation, but when it comes to weight conservation against the future of a whole nation, I believe we must elect the last.

I will not say that stones have sex, but I would like to point out that it also pays to give inanimate or "non"sentient objects certain "rights", just like a corporation can be a "legal person" and has rights despite it being a fictional entity, existing entirely on paper only. For example "nonsentient" insects play a vital role in ecology and thus life on this planet, including humans. And "inanimate" objects like water, rivers, lakes, air and yes even rocks also play their own vital roles. To treat them as equals ensures that they wiill continue to fulfil their part and in the end that humans also get into trouble.
If that includes people thinking stones have sex, animals are sentient, trees can talk or if that is all just a bunch of DNA-machines to you, by keeping nature, the biosphere and its inanimate elements alive, this also goes to humanity. We are after all a part of the biosphere.

"The future of a whole nation" thus actually cannot be unlinked from conservation.

Of course one thing has to be clear - the old fashined idea of conservation, to take some hundred square miles of land, put up a fence, take away all people and create some human-free "Nature" is nonsense. The way conservation has to work is, as I believe is thought of in this law, to give them equality - creating a balance, people living with nature, not rule over it, consume it but also not retreat completely from it.

Yeah, that is a bit strange, to say the least (I don't think any animist people would even believe anything close to that). The point, however, is that there are living things in the wild, that are mothers and fathers, and might even be smarter than we give them credit for (Animals Have Emotional Lives, Too | Environment | AlterNet). I think they, or at least the natural world as a whole (I'm a soft Gaian, if that helps tell where I'm coming from) deserve some rudimentary rights and protections.

Look, humanity needs to rethink it's relationship with the natural world, and see it in a new light, not the western view that it is simply a ball of resources, but is something more, like our ancestors did. We're part of this web of life afterall, our health and survival depends on it being healthy and surviving. This legislation, even if symbolically, sets a precedent for that, even if parts are off-putting. (Which I'm sure will be dealt with in due time).

But Corporations and so are conformed by people! Of course it is not a living being per se, but a corporation is a group of persons... not a group of stones. It is impossible to equate a Human or an animal to a tree or rock. We all have our place in the biosphere, if we were equal or pretend to equalize to our environment, everything would be insane, because, ethically, a person being equal in rights to exist as a plant would need to ask permission to such plant to use it as food... and whom will represent the natural resources if not another human? This whole idea of being legally equal to plants or rocks or else is just non-sense. In nature, big animals eat small animals and so on, what makes us different is that in nature, animals only take what they need to survive. To try and emulate that behavior in Humans is a step backwards in what civilization concerns. From that point of view, poverty is not a serious problem, but a way of life to be emulated.

But much of the world has been overconsuming at the same time. It's all about treading lightly, which is easier if one has a new mindset about the natural world they depend on.

On a side note, what is your opinion of uncontacted tribes? Should they be left alone or civilized? Because many could still be living in the effected areas? Or what us your opinion of the Belo Monte Dam?

Yay!

One of my favorite aquarium fish are native to Bolivia.

I'm aware of the poverty issue, but that's a whole 'nother ball game...

Just developing in a country isn't really a solution to poverty, either. It solves the issue temporarily, and then when the population explodes again, everyone falls under the poverty line, and you're left with poverty and environmental devastation.

Sometimes I almost think that places like Bolivia just won't work for large populations of capitalistic humans, and the only real solution would be to move everybody to specific human-only settlements that are very dense and compacted, and limit the populations of them to keep poverty and disease away.

I agree. I just don't think regarding the natural world as having "equal rights" to humans is the way to go. That's just being silly, as I said about oxygen molecules...

As above, I agree with you, to protect is good, but to give rights to plants...hhmmm

Fortunately or unfortunately, we don't belong to that much of the world that consumes a lot of natural resources.
Concerning isolated tribes, a part of me wishes them to conserve their way of life, their traditions. After all, it's their life. On the other hand, when I see them, I see a lot of people living in infra-human life conditions. They are plagued with decease, lack of medicines, lack of food, almost an animal state. I think that if they were given the choice of a "civilized" life, most will adopt it and a fraction will reject it. That seems to be the way of progress.

We also think like that, given our current authorities, but we were doing big advances in Human Development until 2003, when Sanchez de Lozada was forced to leave the country and a kind of anarchy ruled until Morales took the presidency in 2006. From there, the country went down in all its indicators. I like to think that, given our small population and our enormous resources, all of us bolivians should be living a more than decent life. But populism is not compatible with intelligence and common sense.

That's actually not really true. If you've read a lot of the discussion we've had here, you'll see that that's sort of a falacy on the part of civilization. Here's an interesting read that's relevant. Might be a bit "fringe" for some, but still presents a pretty good case.

But I digress, let's not derail this thread.