• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

UN document would give 'Mother Earth' same rights as humans

Taken at face value your rant here, how is possible to come to any other conclusion then that the human race must be exterminated?


j-mac

I see! You are asking if it is possible to live in balance/harmony with our environment. How novel. Who could ever have imagined such a possibility? Although extermination of the race would probably be best for the planet's sake, it is not something I have suggested nor approved. Nice of you to read my mind and print my thoughts for readers who don't have the mastery of mind-reading. You might get your antenna checked or adjusted.
 
Looking into the future you see then, what, and how do you see the human race existing on this planet given that our very existence harms another being, tree, blade of grass, or cockroach?


j-mac

I don't think you understand the purpose of what they're doing. It's not about trying not to harm anything at all. That would be contrary to nature itself and would be quite idiotic. All living things must harm if they want to eat. The point is to not upset the balance that is supposed to be constant in nature inorder for all species to have a chance of survival. Just because we have the power as the dominant species to completely destroy the natural habitat of other living things doesn't mean that we should. In many cases we should know better, if only for own sake.
 
I see! You are asking if it is possible to live in balance/harmony with our environment. How novel. Who could ever have imagined such a possibility? Although extermination of the race would probably be best for the planet's sake, it is not something I have suggested nor approved. Nice of you to read my mind and print my thoughts for readers who don't have the mastery of mind-reading. You might get your antenna checked or adjusted.

Where has man, at any point in history, lived in harmony with nature?
 
Where has man, at any point in history, lived in harmony with nature?

When there wasn't enough of a population to cause long term harm. Our biggest problem in terms of co-existing with nature is population based more than technologically based. The best thing we could do is promote wide spread use of birth control and enough of a standard of living that people don't feel the need to have lots of children because some will die. Once that happens, our populations seem to naturally begin to decline. Either that or we kill a bunch of people and I don't like that solution.
 
For anyone interested, this is the Bolivian law on which the UN document will be based. It's in Spanish, obviously, but I'm sure the smart ones among you will figure out how to Google-translate it. It basically says what I thought it would say. It's about finding the right balance to preserve the well being of all things on Earth, including humans.

Ley de Derechos de la Madre Tierra - Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia
 
I see! You are asking if it is possible to live in balance/harmony with our environment. How novel. Who could ever have imagined such a possibility? Although extermination of the race would probably be best for the planet's sake, it is not something I have suggested nor approved. Nice of you to read my mind and print my thoughts for readers who don't have the mastery of mind-reading. You might get your antenna checked or adjusted.


I understand, you post not to be actually addressed, but just to type words on a screen and see yourself posted....My mistake.

j-mac
 
Where has man, at any point in history, lived in harmony with nature?

Before the industrial revolution gave us the tools to **** it all up on a large scale and at a dramatically faster pace. We've been trying to find ways to minimize the damage as soon as we realized that we weren't doing ourselves a favor. This is just another step in that process, although as I said, way, waaaay ahead of its time.
 
Before the industrial revolution gave us the tools to **** it all up on a large scale and at a dramatically faster pace. We've been trying to find ways to minimize the damage as soon as we realized that we weren't doing ourselves a favor. This is just another step in that process, although as I said, way, waaaay ahead of its time.

It was way before that. There's a reason we no longer have any mammoths and giant sloths.
 
It was way before that. There's a reason we no longer have any mammoths and giant sloths.

That's true. And as the dominant species on the planet it's inevitable that we will cause the most damage and be responsible for some species going extinct. I do see a marked effort in many societies to change our relationship with nature. We are becoming more respectful and much more responsible with the power we have to alter our environment. It's the smart thing to do if we want our species to survive.
 
For anyone interested, this is the Bolivian law on which the UN document will be based. It's in Spanish, obviously, but I'm sure the smart ones among you will figure out how to Google-translate it. It basically says what I thought it would say. It's about finding the right balance to preserve the well being of all things on Earth, including humans.

Ley de Derechos de la Madre Tierra - Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia

So, not as extreme as some tried to make, right? Not surprising.
 
I don't think you understand the purpose of what they're doing. It's not about trying not to harm anything at all. That would be contrary to nature itself and would be quite idiotic. All living things must harm if they want to eat. The point is to not upset the balance that is supposed to be constant in nature inorder for all species to have a chance of survival. Just because we have the power as the dominant species to completely destroy the natural habitat of other living things doesn't mean that we should. In many cases we should know better, if only for own sake.


Oh, I think I get it, someone earlier spoke about movements like this as a direct assault on capitalism itself, and a case can certainly be made for that. But you are talking, and correctly about the balance that exists. Surely that means that advances in energy, food, and crop advances, and the sheer number of people living on this planet deserve a fair workable point as well, no?

But see when I read this part:

...grants the Earth a series of specific rights that include rights to life, water and clean air; the right to repair livelihoods affected by human activities; and the right to be free from pollution.

That to me speaks of farcical self imposed, and totally unnecessary limitations that will result in the possible deaths of sectors of human population. But hey, it's all good as long as "Mother Earth" approves right?

Then you have the question of whom would be the arbiter, or the 'Earth Whisperer' if you will?

It also establishes a Ministry of Mother Earth, and provides the planet with an ombudsman whose job is to hear nature's complaints as voiced by activist and other groups, including the state.

An Ombudsman? Are you kidding me? Hearing complaints as voiced through such groups as ELF, and the other extremist whack jobs out there such as the nut job I used to see near DC when I lived there with his car plastered with bumper stickers reading "Rats are people too", and "my best friends are Rats"...

Right now this country is in an artificial energy crisis, imposed in no small part to the obstructive, and destructive actions of people like this.

j-mac
 
What's your footprint Joe?


j-mac

I could say anything. But you're trying to divert from the issue at hand. being reasonable and seeking balance is far different than wanting to kill us all. no matter what your political persuasion, you should recognize that. Being good stuwards means taking care and not abusing the environment. Seeking to do so is not evil or extreme. Getting your panies in a wad and over exaggerating everything that is said or done is.
 
Oh, I think I get it, someone earlier spoke about movements like this as a direct assault on capitalism itself, and a case can certainly be made for that. But you are talking, and correctly about the balance that exists. Surely that means that advances in energy, food, and crop advances, and the sheer number of people living on this planet deserve a fair workable point as well, no?

But see when I read this part:



That to me speaks of farcical self imposed, and totally unnecessary limitations that will result in the possible deaths of sectors of human population. But hey, it's all good as long as "Mother Earth" approves right?

Then you have the question of whom would be the arbiter, or the 'Earth Whisperer' if you will?



An Ombudsman? Are you kidding me? Hearing complaints as voiced through such groups as ELF, and the other extremist whack jobs out there such as the nut job I used to see near DC when I lived there with his car plastered with bumper stickers reading "Rats are people too", and "my best friends are Rats"...

Right now this country is in an artificial energy crisis, imposed in no small part to the obstructive, and destructive actions of people like this.

j-mac

I realize that most countries are not ready for this. I'd be very surprised if Bolivia manages to live up to their own law. It's going to be very difficult to consistently enforce it. They're a different culture, though, and as a society much more in tune with nature than we are, so if any country can pull this off they sure can.

As for this UN thing, if it even passes, it'll be purely symbolic. Most countries, even those who have extensive environment protection programs, have other more pressing concerns at the moment.
 
Considering the earth as a life form is unpopular because it instantly removes our status as the most advanced species. It's considerate that the Bolivians are trying to be nice to the planet. Considerate, but not necessary. The earth, with patience that we cannot fathom, takes back everything that we take from it in time. Right now, lake Mead is patiently wearing out the Hoover Dam.

The earth is very capable of taking care of herself. We know for a fact that the human population has been reduced to a few thousand a couple of different times, way back in history. We also know that our demise could come from the super-magma that is located under Yellowstone Park. There are similar catastrophic events waiting patiently in many parts of the world. Fault lines come to mind.

Armageddon won't be unleashed by God, but it could very easily be unleashed by Mother Earth and you would think it was from God.
 
That to me speaks of farcical self imposed, and totally unnecessary limitations that will result in the possible deaths of sectors of human population.

Yes, we don't know why.
 
So now corporations and Earth are people? Man, everything gets to be a person these days.
 
It is a control mechanism, another means to gain more control over mankind. That is all environmentalism is, a world religion seeking to convert human kind into slaves.


But scientists, particularly evolutionary psychologists, have identified another function of religion in addition to its function of explaining the world. Religion often supplements or replaces the tribalism that is an innate part of our evolved nature.

Original religions were tribal rather than universal. Each tribe had its own god or gods, and the success of the tribe was evidence that their god was stronger than others.

But modern religions have largely replaced tribal gods with universal gods and allowed unrelated individuals from outside the tribe to join. Identification with a religion has replaced identification with a tribe. While many decry religious wars, modern religion has probably net reduced human conflict because there are fewer tribal wars. (Anthropologists have shown that tribal wars are even more lethal per capita than modern wars.)

It is this identity-creating function that environmentalism provides. As the world becomes less religious, people can define themselves as being Green rather than being Christian or Jewish.

Consider some of the ways in which environmental behaviors echo religious behaviors and thus provide meaningful rituals for Greens:

• There is a holy day—Earth Day.

• There are food taboos. Instead of eating fish on Friday, or avoiding pork, Greens now eat organic foods and many are moving towards eating only locally grown foods.

• There is no prayer, but there are self-sacrificing rituals that are not particularly useful, such as recycling. Recycling paper to save trees, for example, makes no sense since the effect will be to reduce the number of trees planted in the long run.

• Belief systems are embraced with no logical basis. For example, environmentalists almost universally believe in the dangers of global warming but also reject the best solution to the problem, which is nuclear power. These two beliefs co-exist based on faith, not reason.

• There are no temples, but there are sacred structures. As I walk around the Emory campus, I am continually confronted with recycling bins, and instead of one trash can I am faced with several for different sorts of trash. Universities are centers of the environmental religion, and such structures are increasingly common. While people have worshipped many things, we may be the first to build shrines to garbage.

• Environmentalism is a proselytizing religion. Skeptics are not merely people unconvinced by the evidence: They are treated as evil sinners. I probably would not write this article if I did not have tenure.
Paul H. Rubin: Environmentalism as Religion - WSJ.com
 
I totally agree with the resolution. How can human beings be so naive as not to recognize that life forms do not have to be similar to ourselves. The earth has trees and greenery as similar to hairs on humans. Fluids that could equate to body fluids. An atmosphere/biosphere that harbors parasites until they begin to damage the host.
Did you really just criticize people for a naive inability to "recognize that life forms do not have to be similar to ourselves" -- and then go on to talk about how "similar" and "equatable" the earth is to humans?

Usually such thoughts are anaethema (sp) to humans because of their swollen egos. They can't acknowledge the possibility that they might not be the pre eminent beings of the universe. Possibly even insignificant. Their medias and politics and education are constantly massaging their egos and encouraging their fantasies. There is a real world here.
Yes, but the real world recognizes none of this crap about "a right to exist" or a "right to continue natural cycles." In the real world, you kill, eat, poop, procreate and die in the gnashing teeth of another predator.
 
Considering the earth as a life form is unpopular because it instantly removes our status as the most advanced species. It's considerate that the Bolivians are trying to be nice to the planet. Considerate, but not necessary. The earth, with patience that we cannot fathom, takes back everything that we take from it in time. Right now, lake Mead is patiently wearing out the Hoover Dam.

The earth is very capable of taking care of herself. We know for a fact that the human population has been reduced to a few thousand a couple of different times, way back in history. We also know that our demise could come from the super-magma that is located under Yellowstone Park. There are similar catastrophic events waiting patiently in many parts of the world. Fault lines come to mind.

Armageddon won't be unleashed by God, but it could very easily be unleashed by Mother Earth and you would think it was from God.
I disagree.

The Earth is but a speck of insignificant dust that is already well past the prime of her transient existence. Her biosphere is in its twilight and will soon be taken from her. The oceans will then evaporate and Mother Earth will endure the latter part of her existence a small, dessicated rock before she's finally swallowed by the Sun.

If Mother Earth is capable of worrying about anything, it sure as hell ain't us.
 
The US will reject it.

Let's hope so. Lately we seem all too happy to ceed our soverignity to this UN that clearly would like to see us and Israel cease to exist.


j-mac
 
Back
Top Bottom