• 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

CriticalThought said:
I think I tend to agree with them. The earth is a biosphere. It is quite alive and we are just one part of it. We forget that and there will be consequences.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we can now prosecute tigers for killing rabbits.
 
apdst said:
Yeah, we can now prosecute tigers for killing rabbits.
Click to expand...
You do that and I'll sue your ass for disrupting the natural cycle! Cycles have rights too you know!
 
j-mac said:
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, EMD Quote

The assault would be on Corporatism not Capitalism. Corporatism does not live and breathe, ergo planetary considerations are not part of the Corporate program. That would be the difference between real people and fictitious entities. It is also the power of Corporations should be severely limited. Capitalism is wonderful and is a person to person deal. It involves real people, more so than numbers.
Click to expand...
 
Taylor said:
You do that and I'll sue your ass for disrupting the natural cycle! Cycles have rights too you know!
Click to expand...

OMG! Don't tell me that cycles have rights, too. ;)

It'll be the end of us all.
 
American said:
It's a violation of the freedom of religion, and the US should veto anything like this.
Click to expand...

Errr, right, like making a Corporation a person. LOL!! Like making a lump of flesh a person. LOL! We should veto "anything" like this!! LMAO!!
 
Ikari said:
So now corporations and Earth are people? Man, everything gets to be a person these days.
Click to expand...

I don't see the problem. Anything big enough to affect us all needs to be controlled and/or protected. Within reason and as responsibly as possible, of course. We're still in the process of figuring out a delicate balance in both your examples. We'll get it eventually.
 
Marshabar said:
Everything but an inconvenient baby that is.
Click to expand...

Heh. Not big enough an issue, sorry. The day we face extinction, you bet your ass any and all potential human being will be protected. As is stands now, abortion remains a private/ethical/religious/moral matter that doesn't really affect society in any relevant or significant way. I care a hell of a lot more about what's in my air and water, than whether or not my neighbor just got rid of an "inconvenient" baby. :shrug:
 
Why do conservatives always extrapolate things to absurd extremes?

We're not saying, for example, you cannot eat meat because you know you are going to go against the rights of a cow," he said. "But when human activity develops at a certain scale that you (cause to) disappear a species, then you are really altering the vital cycles of nature or of Mother Earth. Of course, you need a mine to extract iron or zinc, but there are limits."
Click to expand...

Somehow "we should put limits on the damage we do to the environment" translates to "ILL GO TO JAIL FOR KILLING MOSQUITOS!!!"

Oi.
 
Deuce said:
Why do conservatives always extrapolate things to absurd extremes?
Click to expand...

Because, let's say we have some benevolent person who we give that kind of power to be the arbiter on behalf of animals that could not represent themselves, even if we could ensure that only someone is acting in truly benevolent fashion. That's fine, but having that engaged is like having a loaded weapon, one that is based on the promise of acting in the best interest of everything.

Now, let's say it's a 'democracy'... well, any insect outnumbers humans 1000's to 1, so what humans want is irrelevant, and if this judge decides that the bees want cities demolished to be replaced with plantlife, well, the people that don't well, they cast their vote and 'oh the bees win again'.

It's limitless legal power and it makes laws based on arbitrary decisions, it's a system that is ripe for abuse and should not be installed in any way. It's too bad that Obama now puts precedence in the UN / Nato / Muslim brotherhood then he does in the US congress, so maybe it's a sign of the times.

But, have you actually read through the UN constitution? Agenda 21?

Somehow "we should put limits on the damage we do to the environment" translates to "ILL GO TO JAIL FOR KILLING MOSQUITOS!!!"

Oi.
Click to expand...

Ya, because you start with what sounds like "reasonable limits", like banning agent orange because of whatever plant life it destroys... then as the power grows, then whoever gains this power will use it for their own ends, and power almost always leads to an abuse of power... there's no reason we should sign up to facilitate this process at an international level.
 
Erod said:
Bug = Bolivian

LOL

Yeah, that sounds about right.
Click to expand...

Wow -- talk about racism.

In you mind, people from a small South American country are equivalent to insects?
 
BmanMcfly said:
Because, let's say we have some benevolent person who we give that kind of power to be the arbiter on behalf of animals that could not represent themselves, even if we could ensure that only someone is acting in truly benevolent fashion. That's fine, but having that engaged is like having a loaded weapon, one that is based on the promise of acting in the best interest of everything.

Now, let's say it's a 'democracy'... well, any insect outnumbers humans 1000's to 1, so what humans want is irrelevant, and if this judge decides that the bees want cities demolished to be replaced with plantlife, well, the people that don't well, they cast their vote and 'oh the bees win again'.

It's limitless legal power and it makes laws based on arbitrary decisions, it's a system that is ripe for abuse and should not be installed in any way. It's too bad that Obama now puts precedence in the UN / Nato / Muslim brotherhood then he does in the US congress, so maybe it's a sign of the times.

But, have you actually read through the UN constitution? Agenda 21?



Ya, because you start with what sounds like "reasonable limits", like banning agent orange because of whatever plant life it destroys... then as the power grows, then whoever gains this power will use it for their own ends, and power almost always leads to an abuse of power... there's no reason we should sign up to facilitate this process at an international level.
Click to expand...

Wow. You really do live in some alternate universe. One with a lot of tin foil in it. The proposed text does nothing that you describe.
 
Deuce said:
Wow. You really do live in some alternate universe. One with a lot of tin foil in it. The proposed text does nothing that you describe.
Click to expand...

Um... No, there's no conspiracy theory. I did however ask you, good attempt at a dodge though, have you ever actually read through UN's agenda 21? Or the UN's charter?

This just falls into line with what the UN has publicly stated as their objectives...

But I keep forgetting how man has evolved back in the 80's to be beyond the capacity where groups might have collective objectives they seek to accomplish... my bad, I forgot, people don't do that anymore.
 
DaveFagan said:
The assault would be on Corporatism not Capitalism. Corporatism does not live and breathe, ergo planetary considerations are not part of the Corporate program. That would be the difference between real people and fictitious entities. It is also the power of Corporations should be severely limited. Capitalism is wonderful and is a person to person deal. It involves real people, more so than numbers.
Click to expand...


This makes me wonder if you know what a corporation is.

j-mac
 
hazlnut said:
Wow -- talk about racism.

In you mind, people from a small South American country are equivalent to insects?
Click to expand...

sarcasm detector needs new batteries
 
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.
Click to expand...

Adding on to that in a statement today the nominee for UN Minister of Mother Earth was quoted as saying:

"You gotta protect the trees man. I talked to this cedar tree that was all like 'Dude why you be making me into paper man? That ain't cool,' and I was all like 'Woah that tree just talked!' You gotta listen to nature dig?"

Picture of nominee Sunshade Flowers Kapitsky:

haight-hippie.jpg
 
j-mac said:
This makes me wonder if you know what a corporation is.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Hot damn y'all, ah swar. Glad you asked. It is a form of business to create a "fictitious entity" to operate business and eliminate the owner/owners from "liability." If things go wrong, just push the bankrupt button, go home. The liabilities one formed the business to avoid will become those little round brown balls that roll downhill to the citizenry impacted. If you form an LLC, your liability is limited to your original investment. I'd like to buy the nuke plant in your neighborhood with my shell Corporation, scrap the metals, then file bankruptcy and have your state pay me my salary as a CEO to manage the bandruptcy process while it is de-commissioning.
 
DaveFagan said:
Corporatism does not live and breathe, ergo planetary considerations are not part of the Corporate program.
Click to expand...

Although the ability to achieve and sustain economic profits are a basic premise for any company that wants to survive, it is far too simplistic to assert that companies lack concern for the environment. While "sustainable development" might not be a catch phrase that dominates strategic management considerations, notions that are compatible i.e., resource scarcity, increased productivity (in part, achievable by reducing waste), etc., are common.

For example, if one goes to Coca Cola's 2010 10-K report, one finds that the company is very concerned about water-related issues:

Water is the main ingredient in substantially all of our products. It is also a limited resource in many parts of the world, facing unprecedented challenges from overexploitation, increasing pollution, poor management and climate change. As demand for water continues to increase around the world, and as water becomes scarcer and the quality of available water deteriorates, our system may incur increasing production costs or face capacity constraints which could adversely affect our profitability or net operating revenues in the long run.

In other words, the company sees a very real relationship between an environmental issue and its business model. It also understands that failure to address major related environmental problems could adversely impact its long-run sales and net profits.

Those are not hollow words, even as the company had been slow to recognize this issue in the past. The company was criticized and responded to the social concerns of its customers and other stakeholders. Now, for example, with respect to Kenya, the Kenya Broadcasting Corporation [url-http://www.kbc.co.ke/news.asp?nid=69747]reported[/url]:

In addition to its commitment to strengthening the economy, Coca-Cola has also made a long-term commitment to sustainability; working both internally as well as with communities to create greater shared value.

Externally, Coca-Cola has allocated a total of USD 30 million to the RAIN project, which aims to provide over 2 million people in Africa with access to clean water by 2015.
 
Bruce said:
Where has man, at any point in history, lived in harmony with nature?
Click to expand...

I have always lived in harmony with nature, and carry bar-b-cue sauce with me at all times. Nature is for eating, which is harmony to my taste buds. :mrgreen:

funny-pictures-road-kill-cafe-dMp.jpg
 
Last edited:
donsutherland1 said:
Although the ability to achieve and sustain economic profits are a basic premise for any company that wants to survive, it is far too simplistic to assert that companies lack concern for the environment. While "sustainable development" might not be a catch phrase that dominates strategic management considerations, notions that are compatible i.e., resource scarcity, increased productivity (in part, achievable by reducing waste), etc., are common.

For example, if one goes to Coca Cola's 2010 10-K report, one finds that the company is very concerned about water-related issues:

Water is the main ingredient in substantially all of our products. It is also a limited resource in many parts of the world, facing unprecedented challenges from overexploitation, increasing pollution, poor management and climate change. As demand for water continues to increase around the world, and as water becomes scarcer and the quality of available water deteriorates, our system may incur increasing production costs or face capacity constraints which could adversely affect our profitability or net operating revenues in the long run.

In other words, the company sees a very real relationship between an environmental issue and its business model. It also understands that failure to address major related environmental problems could adversely impact its long-run sales and net profits.

Those are not hollow words, even as the company had been slow to recognize this issue in the past. The company was criticized and responded to the social concerns of its customers and other stakeholders. Now, for example, with respect to Kenya, the Kenya Broadcasting Corporation [url-http://www.kbc.co.ke/news.asp?nid=69747]reported[/url]:

In addition to its commitment to strengthening the economy, Coca-Cola has also made a long-term commitment to sustainability; working both internally as well as with communities to create greater shared value.

Externally, Coca-Cola has allocated a total of USD 30 million to the RAIN project, which aims to provide over 2 million people in Africa with access to clean water by 2015.
Click to expand...

It would obviously be in a Corporations interest to protect the fiscal integrity of its most basic resource. This is directly to the bottom line of the cost accounting, not a humanitarian intent. Protecting the bottom line. Enough sun hits the State of Texas to power the world, but we do not see people standing in line to harness this because it does not favor the Corporate bottom line, not because it cannot be done.
 
Deuce said:
Why do conservatives always extrapolate things to absurd extremes?
Click to expand...
Wait, what?

You're supporting legislation to give "Mother Nature" the same rights as humans, and want to accuse conservatives of "extrapolating things to absurd extremes"?

Priceless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom