The Political Hat

     Another “quick takes” on items where there is too little to say to make a complete article, but is still important enough to comment on.

     The focus this time: Slaves to an imaginary spiritual Earth

     First, a little mood music:

     Carrying on…

     Ironic that a journal called “Science” is shilling the cultish “nature rights” movement that has nothing to do with actual science.

“The rights of nature–which include geological features–are generally defined as the right to ‘exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution.’ Nature is, of course, not sentient. So, this campaign is really about granting environmental extremists legal standing to enforce their policy desires through litigation as legal guardians serving nature’s best interests.

“But the movement has a problem. It is clearly ideological rather than rational. So now, three law professors and a biologist writing in Science urge scientists to promote the agenda by giving courts a scientific pretext to enforce nature rights laws, or even, impose the agenda from the bench (as has already been attempted several times). From, “Science and the Legal Rights of Nature:”

“‘By contributing to interdisciplinary analyses of rights-of-nature laws before disputes arise, scientists can help contribute to the effectiveness of these laws. The availability of credible scholarly analysis of legal scientific terms used in law would make these rights more tangible and accessible to the judges whose role it is to apply them. Although scientific uncertainty often cannot be eliminated, it’s reduction in turn reduces legal uncertainty and thus helps meet the objection that rights-of-nature laws are too vague to be applied.’

“And here it really gets irrational:

“‘Another type of interdisciplinary scholarship that would assist the functioning of rights-of-nature laws would be the examination of the duties of nature. Although some rights-of-nature laws grant rights for nature without corresponding duties, others equate nature to a legal person with both rights and duties. Uncertainty over liabilities and duties of nature has been an impediment to implementing some rights-of-nature laws. Scientists can help legal systems comprehend nature’s potential legal obligations (e.g.,“ecosystem services”), and what environmental protection measures may also be legally required to ensure natural entities can continue to fulfill these obligations.”

“Good grief. Such nonsense in a science journal. ‘Nature’ is not a moral entity. It is not conscious. It is not a discrete thing. It includes everything from rock outcroppings, to algae, swamps, oceans, lion prides, earthquake faults, glaciers, and the moon. It–and its constituent aspects–cannot owe anything or anyone duties. No matter how destructive, a river that floods has done nothing ‘wrong.’ The very notion is nonsensical.”

Continue reading →