Bolivia grants "Earth Rights" to Nature

[auroraglacialis]

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

Bolivia is set to pass the world's first laws granting all nature equal rights to humans. The Law of Mother Earth[...] will establish 11 new rights for nature. They include: the right to life and to exist; the right to continue vital cycles and processes free from human alteration; the right to pure water and clean air; the right to balance; the right not to be polluted; and the right to not have cellular structure modified or genetically altered.

Controversially, it will also enshrine the right of nature "to not be affected by mega-infrastructure and development projects that affect the balance of ecosystems and the local inhabitant communities".

[Ashen Key]

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

[Woodsprite]

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

[Ashen Key]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

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 .

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.

[Marvellous Chester]

Woot go Bolivia! Mother Earth is sacred. XD

[Icu]

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.

[Woodsprite]

^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."

[Tsyal Makto]

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.

[Isard]

Bolivia also believes chicken makes you gay.

[auroraglacialis]

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....

[applejuice]

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.

[Isard]

Originally Posted by applejuice

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.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by Icu

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.

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.

[auroraglacialis]

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.

[applejuice]

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.