3 ms·

Self-ownership by non-intelligent beings could be implemented as collective duty on the society to represent the beings' interest in the best way possible just

• willvarfar 6y ago
  The article talks about national parks in New Zealand that have been granted personhood, and also mentions some American legislation: > Although it doesn’t go as far as giving trees and other plants ownership of themselves, the Clean Water Act of 1972 in the United States effectively grants them some rights. Under the ‘natural resource damage’ provisions of the law, trees and other resources have some basic rights. It’s the government, however, that’s entrusted with protecting those rights, although any money earned through litigation must be spent on the resource itself. Essentially, the money belongs to the resource.
• silicon2401 6y ago
  This is a fascinating concept, although its implementation would be complicated. What qualifies as 'non-intelligent', just anything non-human? Can we define a spectrum (as a pescetarian, I make special exceptions for octopus and squid as they qualify as sentient on my rudimentary personal sentience/intelligence spectrum)? What defines best interest? I can easily imagine scenarios in which my best interest would be euthanasia or copious painkillers/sedatives, if I had to otherwise live in severe pain or discomfort. But I can't say what other humans would want in that scenario. Interesting topic indeed.