6 ms·
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 bee
by kingcharles 5y ago
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_dispute 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.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- gumby 5y agoWhy 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.
- akira2501 5y agoThe burgeoning concept of the "Natural Asset Corporation" still leaves me queasy, though. I wonder if this is just groundwork to make it a reality.
- FooBarBizBazz 5y agoFeels 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".
- tremon 5y agoWhat 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.
- FooBarBizBazz 5y agoMakes sense. Feels almost like a way to use torts like crimes, civil law as criminal law.
- gumby 5y agoI 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.
- zzedd 5y agogood 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).
- imgabe 5y agoSure, the river can sue people who pollute it, but if the river floods my house can I sue the river?
- visarga 5y agoIf 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.
- musingsole 5y agoI 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.
- Balero 5y agoOnly if you pay back rent for squatting in its flood plain.
- zestyping 5y agoIf 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?
- musingsole 5y agoYou 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!!!"
- zestyping 5y agoUh, 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.
- kingcharles 5y ago> What does it mean for a river to own a bank account? The river has two banks already! *Zing!*
- 5y ago
- bserge 5y agoJust humans fitting everything into their borderline retarded systems. Claiming resources by force and by right has become too hard, so now they'll claim protectorate or something over resources that are "threatened" by other humans. In the end, it's just another way for this species to fight itself. We are so fucked. Could really use some aliens right about now.