UN: Give Bugs & Trees the Same Rights as Humans

[patandchickens]

I don't see what this has to do with giving governments more power.

Governments can ALREADY, basically, do what they please (whatever the populace allows) in terms of regulating "plant a garden, milk a cow, dig a well, or take an egg from a chicken".

Also please note that this is not something that has been DONE by the UN, it is a *proposal* put up in the UN by just one nation.

It's just a suggestion that other things be explicitly added to the list of what should be taken into consideration in those decisions... and honestly as far as I can tell it is more a PR issue than actually changing anything. The Bolivians acknowledge that the rights of "mother nature" do not TRUMP human rights, just have to be considered when trying to strike a balance; and don't MOST countries these days, the US being among the forefront, have laws that protect ecosystems and endangered species and that sort of thing?


Pat, who thinks it is generally a good idea to stop and think seriously about how what we do affects the world we live in

 

[FarmerChick]

QUOTE:
The wording may yet evolve, but the general structure is meant to mirror Bolivia's Law of the Rights of Mother Earth, which Bolivian President Evo Morales enacted in January.

______________

plus has anyone read the laws of mother earth as set forth by Bolivia?

I haven't LOL

and we don't know the limits, the content, or nothing and yet we are all guessing it will be bad (or good as I kinda think lol)

 

[lwheelr]

If you trust that a law will always be followed with the intent that it had when written, then all sorts of laws sound like a good idea at first.

If, on the other hand, you always assume that if a loophole for corruption exists, that someone wanting power will find it and exploit it, to the detriment of the subjects, then you are suspicious of laws which leave all the interpretive power in the hands of the government.

Considering that laws enacted with good intent have ALWAYS been corrupted and exploited, I think it is fair to assume that this one would be also. The goals of the nations of the UN are vastly different than the goals of the president of Bolivia (even though I think it will be bad law there too, it may take longer because the original intent runs through that country more than it does through the UN - many supporters in the UN already have goals to force veganism and socialism on the world as a whole).

Farm Subsidy and protection laws are a good example in the US. Enacted for the purpose of protecting small farmers from catastrophic weather or pest devastation, involving total losses of crops, and to maintain consistent supplies of key crops, the programs have been corrupted to do something entirely different than what they originally did.

Corrupt elected officers, desiring more power (which they felt would come from big business, and not from small farmers), combined with corrupt corporate farm lobbies, colluded to restrict the requirements for qualification for those subsidies, bit by bit. At this point in history, nobody BUT big corporate farms can qualify for farm subsidies or even claim for losses, because minimum loss levels and crop sizes have been raised to the point where small farms no longer qualify.

Laws will always be used by corrupt officials to gain more power.

I would not trust them to limit themselves when handing them legislation or regulation which gives them such far reaching power as "interpreting" the needs and desires of any entity which cannot speak for itself, especially when giving them that power gives them power over every aspect of life and every choice made by individuals on a daily basis.

No, government does not currently have that kind of power. In some areas they can tell me whether I can RAISE a chicken - not everywhere. They do not have the power now to tell me whether I can gather eggs from those chickens every morning.

The kind of law discussed here WOULD give them that kind of power. Once they determine that a chicken has the same rights I do - that is, the right to reproduce, the right to property, the right to decide for itself what it wants to do in its life - and once they decide that the government now has the "responsibility" to interpret what that chicken "wants", it is only a matter of time before someone on the appointed government board decides that maybe that chicken does not want me to take its eggs every day.

Either way, it sets up a situation where I have to ASK the government for PERMISSION to raise chickens, gather eggs, and butcher non-productive chickens. I must only feed them a diet approved by the government - after all, the chicken has a right to be fed what it wants to eat, and if the government must decide what the chicken wants, then the government must also dictate what is an appropriate chicken diet.

Currently, the Bolivian government states that butchering is allowed, and that the rights of animals do not supercede the rights of people - but they DO say they are EQUAL, and at some point, when they come into conflict, the rights of the chicken to live will be put ahead of the rights of the person to eat it (after all, if they are equal, the chicken has an equal right to eat the person in order to meet its own need for protein, does it not?). It is inevitable, because such laws always begin with the assumption that common sense will be applied at some point, but eventually people are appointed who desire power more than common sense.

The desire from corrupt people for power will always make it into something unintended at the outset. And this one has unlimited power to be corrupted, so inevitably, the lust for power will take it into the realm of the unthinkable.

People desiring power are MORE likely to seek public office, not less. So those who distrust the motives of the government in this kind of legal argument are wise to do so.

 

[bornthrifty]

what is concerning to me is (as we have seen played out in history time and time again,) that cultures who continually elevate the rights, or value of certain creatures, often forget about or neglect to pay attention to human dignity, at least over time they do...

the concern is( yes we have a responsibility, I think most people would agree,) but how can this new authority, be abused? (because governing bodies are not perfect and are just as motivated by money and power as the corporations that we wish to reign in)

I sure wish we could figure out a way to knock down corporate power with out building up another power that can potentially be used against us all in a bigger way,(I mean, at least corporations can't put us in jail,...)

 

[patandchickens]

Considering that laws enacted with good intent have ALWAYS been corrupted and exploited, I think it is fair to assume that this one would be also.

By that logic then all laws must be dangerous/bad. I mean, there isn't too darn much that can't be corrupted/exploited if someone puts their mind to it. Certainly not this proposed (not currently actual) thing any more than plenty of others.

Trying to think of "foolproof" laws that cannot be used oppressively or in ways that you personally would not like, if a particular government administration chose to do it.... eh, honestly, I'm coming up blank on this one. There are probably some but clearly not many, unless my imagination is unusually feeble.

No, government does not currently have that kind of power. In some areas they can tell me whether I can RAISE a chicken - not everywhere. They do not have the power now to tell me whether I can gather eggs from those chickens every morning.

Sure the gov't has that power. If it wanted to, it could perfectly well pass a law saying it is illegal to take eggs away from birds. How is this different than making it illegal to do anything else??

No new powers, certainly not from the UN, would be required to allow it to do so. If it chose to and people let it.

Either way, it sets up a situation where I have to ASK the government for PERMISSION to raise chickens, gather eggs, and butcher non-productive chickens.

Well actually this is ALREADY pretty much the situation for many (most?) people in the USA. In many cities, you need a permit to keep chickens, are regulated as to how many you can have and what kind of quarter you can keep them in, and are often prohibited from butchering them. (In most cities of course it is not even a matter of asking permission, you're just not allowed to do it period, at present)

So it does not seem hinge on any current proposal to the U.N.

Pat

 

[savingdogs]

It does not hinge upon it, but that is what we are discussing, this proposal that is being bandied about. This story in the news does not look like a very good trend and I, for one, heartily agree with lwheelr had to say, that put my thoughts on paper in a very concise manner.

 

[chickenone]

I find it so hard to understand why anyone would be against protecting the earth. I mean, it's all we have.

 

[Wifezilla]

Do you have any idea what could be done to us in the name of "protecting the earth"?

There is already a group of people out there trying to get meat eating banned. I was a vegetarian. It destroyed my health. I live on meat and diary now and my health is better than it has been in decades. Banning meat eating would be giving me a death sentence. Of course if it is "protecting the earth" what do I matter? Right?


Tyranny is tyranny. I don't care what your "cause" is.

 

[savingdogs]

Because I don't trust that a government that gives itself so much power would necessarily always have the earth's best interests in mind. Who speaks for the earth? That is my problem with it, nothing about protecting the earth. Of couse I want that.

 

[Wifezilla]

Here is an example of why you DO NOT want a central powerful authority deciding what is "good for the earth".

In barren parts of Africa, the thinking is "since we are in a drought we need fewer cows". Well, some smart guy figured out that reducing the amount of cows was CAUSING drought. He greatly increased the cattle numbers, used rotational grazing and now his test area is a wetland!
http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2011/03/operation-hope-meat-is-medicine-for.html

If you have a central authority deciding, you will have experts who's careers and livelyhood are based on their theory that cattle cause drought. They are not going to allow experimentation to find out their idea is wrong. When the drought conditions get worse, they will say "we need to get rid of MORE cattle because we didn't cut enough!". The people and the earth would be further screwed.