Nature Is Becoming a Person(foreignpolicy.com)
foreignpolicy.com
Nature Is Becoming a Person
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/11/24/nature-person-rights-environment-climate-philosophy-law/
66 comments
> both natural and artificial persons have responsibilities as well as rights
the problem with legal persons is that we hold them to the same standard as a natural person but their ability to do damage far exceeds anything a natural person can do. terrible decisions are being made by groups that do not reflect the individual. Many crimes are committed by legal persons are only punishable by losing trust from shareholders (lying to investors is much easier to get away with for legal than for natural persons - e.g. they're not crimes for legal persons in the same sense), a natural person would often go to jail for similar actions. Tobacco industry or oil industry would have no executives because they'd all have be doing time. the Sacklers would be hanging from a tree, and Elon Musk would be have to pay taxes.
> Seems to me this "personhood" concept mainly muddies the waters
there is nothing wrong with designating whole regions as off limits to humans. Ban any form of tourism or commercial exploitation etc in parts of the world is the only option IMHO.
the problem with legal persons is that we hold them to the same standard as a natural person but their ability to do damage far exceeds anything a natural person can do. terrible decisions are being made by groups that do not reflect the individual. Many crimes are committed by legal persons are only punishable by losing trust from shareholders (lying to investors is much easier to get away with for legal than for natural persons - e.g. they're not crimes for legal persons in the same sense), a natural person would often go to jail for similar actions. Tobacco industry or oil industry would have no executives because they'd all have be doing time. the Sacklers would be hanging from a tree, and Elon Musk would be have to pay taxes.
> Seems to me this "personhood" concept mainly muddies the waters
there is nothing wrong with designating whole regions as off limits to humans. Ban any form of tourism or commercial exploitation etc in parts of the world is the only option IMHO.
On your first point, I agree.
Non-human natural persons absolutely have responsibilities. The plants are responsible for photosynthesizing, the fungi for decomposition, etc. They do their holy work and we all get to stay alive, if we hold up our end of things as well.
Plants aren't responsible for photosynthesis. They just photosynthesise. Fungi aren't responsible for decomposition. They just decompose.
Saying they are "responsible" for those things is like saying that a river is responsible for flowing or the Earth is responsible for rotating.
Saying they are "responsible" for those things is like saying that a river is responsible for flowing or the Earth is responsible for rotating.
It's a role not a responsibility. Responsibility would imply that they can be hold accountable for not delivering. Such as blaming plants for not taking enough CO2 from the atmosphere.
If my plants ever stop photosynethizing you best believe they're getting a beating
Not in MY garden you don't, you little photosyntard!
smack a leaf with the back of my hand
smack a leaf with the back of my hand
Perhaps "duties" is a clearer word here.
It is not the duty of plants to photosynthesize. It's just something they do. It is important to distinguish these two concepts, because if you equate them, then for example it is the duty of Exxon to destroy the environment. And this whole discussion presumes that humans and collections of humans like Exxon actually have a duty to not destroy the environment.
It is not the duty of plants to photosynthesize. It's just something they do. It is important to distinguish these two concepts, because if you equate them, then for example it is the duty of Exxon to destroy the environment. And this whole discussion presumes that humans and collections of humans like Exxon actually have a duty to not destroy the environment.
> It is important to distinguish these two concepts, because if you equate them, then for example it is the duty of Exxon to destroy the environment. And this whole discussion presumes that humans and collections of humans like Exxon actually have a duty to not destroy the environment.
Well, this is a true statement. There is a meme "100 companies are responsible for climate change" which implies the companies could change their ways and customers don't have to do anything, but it's not true; we keep them around by buying oil and then we burn it.
The only way it could be different would if they could make carbon-neutral synfuels but it doesn't seem like this is happening.
Well, this is a true statement. There is a meme "100 companies are responsible for climate change" which implies the companies could change their ways and customers don't have to do anything, but it's not true; we keep them around by buying oil and then we burn it.
The only way it could be different would if they could make carbon-neutral synfuels but it doesn't seem like this is happening.
I agree with you, that meme is highly misleading. To some extent company behavior is just aggregate customer behavior.
However, it's not the whole extent. For example Exxon knowing about the CO2 greenhouse effect in 1982 and keeping quiet about that knowledge is problematic behavior that is not excused by customers' desire to buy fossil fuels IMHO.
I'm not wedded to the Exxon example. If you prefer, substitute any company that willfully breaks environmental protection laws to increase profits.
However, it's not the whole extent. For example Exxon knowing about the CO2 greenhouse effect in 1982 and keeping quiet about that knowledge is problematic behavior that is not excused by customers' desire to buy fossil fuels IMHO.
I'm not wedded to the Exxon example. If you prefer, substitute any company that willfully breaks environmental protection laws to increase profits.
We downplay the impact systems have on human behavior. Let's look at the claim that people have a need to buy oil, and that oil companies merely meet demand.
In America, most people cannot buy groceries without having access to a car. Car ownership is not required de jure, but it required de facto because of a lack of alternatives. America used to have transportation choice. Anywhere where there was transportation diversity, car, tire, oil companies bought out public transit and shut down the operations. On April 1974, San Francisco mayor and antitrust attorney Joseph Alioto testified that "General Motors and the automobile industry generally exhibit a kind of monopoly evil", adding that GM "has carried on a deliberate concerted action with the oil companies and tire companies...for the purpose of destroying a vital form of competition; namely, electric rapid transit [0].
Oil (and other) companies stimulate demand for their products. When consequences occur, the modus operandi of corporations is to shift blame to their customers. The concept of personal carbon footprints are the result of a PR campaign by British Petroleum [1].
I think the reason 100 companies is a meme is because it resonates. It feels right, but the counter arguments are convenient, easy. It resonates because it hints at phenomena that we can't see directly, but have tremendous influence on our lives.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oi...
In America, most people cannot buy groceries without having access to a car. Car ownership is not required de jure, but it required de facto because of a lack of alternatives. America used to have transportation choice. Anywhere where there was transportation diversity, car, tire, oil companies bought out public transit and shut down the operations. On April 1974, San Francisco mayor and antitrust attorney Joseph Alioto testified that "General Motors and the automobile industry generally exhibit a kind of monopoly evil", adding that GM "has carried on a deliberate concerted action with the oil companies and tire companies...for the purpose of destroying a vital form of competition; namely, electric rapid transit [0].
Oil (and other) companies stimulate demand for their products. When consequences occur, the modus operandi of corporations is to shift blame to their customers. The concept of personal carbon footprints are the result of a PR campaign by British Petroleum [1].
I think the reason 100 companies is a meme is because it resonates. It feels right, but the counter arguments are convenient, easy. It resonates because it hints at phenomena that we can't see directly, but have tremendous influence on our lives.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oi...
Is it really Exxon that’s the problem? Consumption is something we as a species seem evolved to do.
I think I see where you are coming from. I think "responsibility" is a human social construct, but there is a concept that can be generalized for any living system. Plants have a role in the ecosystem with their photosynthesis. So even though they might not have the same kind of agency and volition as humans and photosynthesis is something plants _do_, nevertheless, a plant's relevancy to the ecosystem it belongs to is with their photosynthesis. The ecosystem would not function without it -- or if it does, it would be an entirely different kind of ecosystem.
I think in Carol Sanford's talks on living systems, the unique contribution a living system has for the ecosystem it lives within makes it non-displaceble.
Whether that should be recognized in our legal system, and something that helps humans participate in the ecology ... I don't know. The idea of legal personhood, at least, acknowledges that a living system is its own whole (if we are not just using it as a legal fiction), and it seems to me a stretch to say that a river "wants" legal representation. That sounds like the kind of stuff pre-modern tribal shamans do. That's not necessarily a bad thing in my book, but I don't know if our modern society is ready for that.
On the other hand, it could work as a balance to corporations having legal personhood.
I think in Carol Sanford's talks on living systems, the unique contribution a living system has for the ecosystem it lives within makes it non-displaceble.
Whether that should be recognized in our legal system, and something that helps humans participate in the ecology ... I don't know. The idea of legal personhood, at least, acknowledges that a living system is its own whole (if we are not just using it as a legal fiction), and it seems to me a stretch to say that a river "wants" legal representation. That sounds like the kind of stuff pre-modern tribal shamans do. That's not necessarily a bad thing in my book, but I don't know if our modern society is ready for that.
On the other hand, it could work as a balance to corporations having legal personhood.
> Non-human natural persons absolutely have responsibilities. The plants are responsible for photosynthesizing, the fungi for decomposition, etc. They do their holy work and we all get to stay alive, if we hold up our end of things as well.
No, those are not about responsibility. Is a river responsible for someone drowning in it?
No, those are not about responsibility. Is a river responsible for someone drowning in it?
Just because they can't market those responsibilities in a format that we are used to doesn't mean they don't do the work. It's just like the quiet worker in an office who does his job but is never noticed because he can't/doesn't care about selling his work to others.
and it would be simpler to pursue conservation ends without it.
I doubt it. Look at corporate personhood and how it applies to Citizens United, being able to sue and tax a corporation, etc. Also look at how conservation protections have been put in place over the years compared to corporate protections. Treating corporations as a "person" opened the doors for a lot of simpler legal tools.
I doubt it. Look at corporate personhood and how it applies to Citizens United, being able to sue and tax a corporation, etc. Also look at how conservation protections have been put in place over the years compared to corporate protections. Treating corporations as a "person" opened the doors for a lot of simpler legal tools.
It makes sense to say corporations have responsibilities though, unlike animals. Maybe you're saying the responsibility part isn't necessary?
I agree with your thought, but not sure how to make the responsibility part fit in.
I agree with your thought, but not sure how to make the responsibility part fit in.
> Seems to me this "personhood" concept mainly muddies the waters
As personhood is legally expanded it only follows that other consequences of it will change as well. If it's traditional for personhood to stipulate responsibilities but personhood is too good of a defense for these assets, then I'd bet the responsibilities will shift into a different classification. We already have similar splits between personhood and citizenship.
As personhood is legally expanded it only follows that other consequences of it will change as well. If it's traditional for personhood to stipulate responsibilities but personhood is too good of a defense for these assets, then I'd bet the responsibilities will shift into a different classification. We already have similar splits between personhood and citizenship.
[deleted]
The term responsibilities is very loaded here. Can you elaborate?
> Then of course it falls to humans to determine what the best interests of these "persons" are, and to actually pursue those interests, and to judge whether those humans acting on behalf of these "persons" are actually acting in good faith (and what do we do if they aren't?).
No it doesn't. All we need to do is to acknowledge that non-humans are not lesser than us, and that our most important responsibility as humans is to not abuse our mental and technological advantages.
No it doesn't. All we need to do is to acknowledge that non-humans are not lesser than us, and that our most important responsibility as humans is to not abuse our mental and technological advantages.
Indeed, I agree that one of our most important responsibilities as humans (arguably the most important if you take a generous interpretation) is "to not abuse our mental and technological advantages" --- to each other as well as to the natural world.
But we have to be honest that we possess those advantages, and that we have special status as the only species that has responsibilities. In that sense non-humans are indeed lesser than us.
But we have to be honest that we possess those advantages, and that we have special status as the only species that has responsibilities. In that sense non-humans are indeed lesser than us.
Determining what is "abuse" and what not is not a given, this is why this discussion is required.
How is this different than Chevron?
I think it would be interesting to do away with the concept of legal personhood for everyone. Alabama got rid of marriage, making it a private spiritual thing. Why not atomic identity in self and the few we really WANT to let in?
I can be a socially amenable person without a legal status. We’d still police and service the usual.
The story of “I did this…” is entirely bullshit these days. 5% hunt still. It’s all modern logistics. Why the redundant finance network? How many distributed ledgers do we need?
Even in paper form, the value of currency is coupled to abstract belief in a national identity.
I can be a socially amenable person without a legal status. We’d still police and service the usual.
The story of “I did this…” is entirely bullshit these days. 5% hunt still. It’s all modern logistics. Why the redundant finance network? How many distributed ledgers do we need?
Even in paper form, the value of currency is coupled to abstract belief in a national identity.
The fact that you consider infants and intellectually incapable adults as "limited kinds of persons" says enough about the superiority complex that underlies the problem of humanity exploiting all natural resources.
They’re limited in the sense that they don’t have the ability to advocate for themselves in a court of law or in the court of public opinion. They’re entirely dependent on others to advocate for them. That’s what makes them different from a typical adult human.
Compared to healthy, functioning adults how are infants not limited?
Person is a legal concept, too.
Of course infants and intellectually incapable adults are limited persons in the legal sense: they have fewer duties, but also fewer options. For example, they won't be accepted to a pilot school.
Of course infants and intellectually incapable adults are limited persons in the legal sense: they have fewer duties, but also fewer options. For example, they won't be accepted to a pilot school.
This could be turned round - are you implicitly assuming a human with limited ability has less value? Mere skill isn't the same as being a "good person", after all.
No, not at all. I'm a Christian and it's dogma for me that all humans carry the image of God and have intrinsic worth independent of their abilities or utility.
It's not about a "superiority complex" but about limited responsibility and independence.
99.9999% of natural resources in the universe are atoms of hydrogen in stars. We can't say that those atoms of hydrogen are a person, what we are really saying is that our probable intention to "exploit" those atoms of hydrogen makes us a vermin. I'm, of course, terrible opposed to that notion.
Ah, like in the olden days?
Back then, when everything we gave a name, thereby got a a soul?
"Myth is already enlightenment, and enlightenment reverts to mythology."
Adorno, T. W., and Max Horkheimer. [1947] 2002. Dialectic of Enlightenment, translated by E. Jephcott. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
"Myth is already enlightenment, and enlightenment reverts to mythology."
Adorno, T. W., and Max Horkheimer. [1947] 2002. Dialectic of Enlightenment, translated by E. Jephcott. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
That was my first thought too: "We used to call her Gaia".
Many still do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis
This movement to make animals and natural features of the environment (mountains, rivers, lakes etc) fit the definition of a "person" for legal purposes has been gaining a ton of momentum over the last decade and is incredibly important for the future of the environment. It will allow these rivers etc to sue entities for damaging them, and can stop harmful developments that are in the planning stages.
It didn't help this monkey with his selfie though:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...
And out of interest, the Illinois Attorney General essentially ruled that I did not fit the meaning of the word "person" under the law because I was a pretrial detainee being held at a county jail, and the rights I was fighting for (workers' comp) only applied to a "person", not to me.
It didn't help this monkey with his selfie though:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...
And out of interest, the Illinois Attorney General essentially ruled that I did not fit the meaning of the word "person" under the law because I was a pretrial detainee being held at a county jail, and the rights I was fighting for (workers' comp) only applied to a "person", not to me.
If a river can sue, does it have property rights? What happens to the damages paid? What does it mean for a river to own a bank account? It cannot make decisions. This doesn't make any sense.
How does the concept of personhood provide anything beyond or different from passing a law that protects a river?
How does the concept of personhood provide anything beyond or different from passing a law that protects a river?
You ask these questions like they can't be answered by a trust for the river. The river being granted personhood allows other legal entities to form around it and make arguments for its interests.
It does make sense. Using "personhood" in this way has been the status quo for half a dozen other types of entities for going on generations now. Your complaints here strike me as similar to complaining about the use of "they" for the genderless out of a "but it's plural!!!"
It does make sense. Using "personhood" in this way has been the status quo for half a dozen other types of entities for going on generations now. Your complaints here strike me as similar to complaining about the use of "they" for the genderless out of a "but it's plural!!!"
Uh, no. Nonbinary people can make decisions. A river cannot make decisions.
If there is a trust for the river, then some human or humans are responsible for making decisions for the trust. So we are talking about an organization of humans that are working to protect the river, not the river itself personified. The organization can sue. The organization can own a bank account. The organization can be awarded damages, provided they have somehow acquired rights to the river. The river cannot do these things.
This is an important distinction because making decisions involves responsibility. If you treat the river as a person in itself, that would mean that the river can be blamed or held responsible, which is nonsense. To do so would hide the responsibility of the real humans who are making decisions. In fact, the organization is responsible, and the humans who run it are responsible for their decisions.
If there is a trust for the river, then some human or humans are responsible for making decisions for the trust. So we are talking about an organization of humans that are working to protect the river, not the river itself personified. The organization can sue. The organization can own a bank account. The organization can be awarded damages, provided they have somehow acquired rights to the river. The river cannot do these things.
This is an important distinction because making decisions involves responsibility. If you treat the river as a person in itself, that would mean that the river can be blamed or held responsible, which is nonsense. To do so would hide the responsibility of the real humans who are making decisions. In fact, the organization is responsible, and the humans who run it are responsible for their decisions.
> What does it mean for a river to own a bank account?
The river has two banks already! *Zing!*
The river has two banks already! *Zing!*
Aughhhh... that was terrible. :)
Sure, the river can sue people who pollute it, but if the river floods my house can I sue the river?
If you do that does that mean we also have to pay for using its potential energy in hydro plants? Same for fishing, shipping, irrigation or tourism. Could be lucrative for the river. Some countries depend on one or two rivers for their livelihood. The rivers could be the richest persons.
I encourage you to look into existing water markets. These agreements exist effectively just in far more words across far more contracts. Personhood could simplify a complex monster.
Only if you pay back rent for squatting in its flood plain.
Why not? The joint stock corporation (a marvelous invention, but just a machine) has, though misunderstanding of Latin, gained all sorts of personhood in US law at least.
It’s only fair that this be extended to animate, and perhaps inanimate, objects as well.
It’s only fair that this be extended to animate, and perhaps inanimate, objects as well.
good observation. i'm a director of a corporation that has "personhood", but my local creek is more alive, performs more important roles than the corporation (just a stack of paper in a safe or the bank account it controls).
The burgeoning concept of the "Natural Asset Corporation" still leaves me queasy, though. I wonder if this is just groundwork to make it a reality.
I concur. I don’t believe corporations should have “personhood either” — I guess I should have added an /s tag,
If I run over you in my car, I go to prison, not the car. Yet if a corporation kills you, the person “driving” isn’t punished, it’s the company that pays the fine.
And for some reason it’s the company that has free speech rights. No river has those.
If I run over you in my car, I go to prison, not the car. Yet if a corporation kills you, the person “driving” isn’t punished, it’s the company that pays the fine.
And for some reason it’s the company that has free speech rights. No river has those.
Feels like NFTs applied to forests and coral reefs and stuff. What I don't get is how this requires people to actually protect those things in the real world. Sell your woodland hash and log the real trees; nothing stops the "double spend".
What I don't get is how this requires people to actually protect those things in the real world
As I understand it: it works mainly by changing the legal standing. Right now, nobody can sue for destruction of habitat because they would have to prove firstly how they are personally affected by said habitat. By using Natural Personhood as proxy, anyone can sue, using the Natural Person to provide standing.
As I understand it: it works mainly by changing the legal standing. Right now, nobody can sue for destruction of habitat because they would have to prove firstly how they are personally affected by said habitat. By using Natural Personhood as proxy, anyone can sue, using the Natural Person to provide standing.
Makes sense. Feels almost like a way to use torts like crimes, civil law as criminal law.
[deleted]
I think is potentially more sinister than it seems:
https://unlimitedhangout.com/2021/10/investigative-reports/w...
>A project of the multilateral development banking system, the Rockefeller Foundation and the New York Stock Exchange recently created a new asset class that will put, not just the natural world, but the processes underpinning all life, up for sale under the guise of promoting “sustainability.”
In and of itself a policy giving legal standing to the environment seem really promising — and no doubt in certain instances, that's probably the case. But we should be careful to distinguish between policy nuances and what tradeoffs may be at play.
In and of itself a policy giving legal standing to the environment seem really promising — and no doubt in certain instances, that's probably the case. But we should be careful to distinguish between policy nuances and what tradeoffs may be at play.
next step will to be to put it on a blockchain
Let me guess now the US can take and interfere under the banner of "human right" because those global south savages can't manage their lands.
Its a bit more global then that, but correct:
Natural Asset Corporations
which is by the largest mega-corps in the world.
https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2021/11/natur...
>According to experts, the financial resources needed to protect natural ecosystems face a dramatic shortfall. With the announcement of NACs, the capital markets continue to respond in novel ways, creating financial mechanisms aimed at protecting, restoring and growing natural areas.
Some will say this is a 'conspiracy' site despite all the sourced connecting quotes, and legal outcomes, related to these vehicles. https://unlimitedhangout.com/2021/10/investigative-reports/w...
Some will say this is a 'conspiracy' site despite all the sourced connecting quotes, and legal outcomes, related to these vehicles. https://unlimitedhangout.com/2021/10/investigative-reports/w...
Humanity has been reaping scarce natural resources for centuries. We have never paid a price to nature, or to future beings that would have wanted to use those resources, because they cannot defend themselves. This is our biggest mistake.
Yes, nature is not a single person, it's all future people. We're outnumbered.
[deleted]
I'm uncomfortable with the idea of legal personhood, but if we extend it to certain types of businesses then we absolutely must extend it to the environment. Otherwise, get ready to live on Arakis.
It's happening in drips and drabs with domesticated animals anyway.
It's happening in drips and drabs with domesticated animals anyway.
Each creature on the Earth has this special role embedded deep within ourselves, a reason that balances our Earth's ecosystem in its special way.
Then of course it falls to humans to determine what the best interests of these "persons" are, and to actually pursue those interests, and to judge whether those humans acting on behalf of these "persons" are actually acting in good faith (and what do we do if they aren't?).
Seems to me this "personhood" concept mainly muddies the waters (so to speak) and it would be simpler to pursue conservation ends without it.