Equal Rights to Mother Nature in Bolivia

Kaltxì, Guest! Why don't you join our community?

Paul Frommer's
Language Workbook

[Seseni]

Bolivia's lawmakers are trying to get a series of laws passed that would grant Nature the same rights as humans. I hope some of the more industrialized nations will take cues from this.

Article with link to the specifics of the law here:

http://www.ecorazzi.com/2011/04/15/bolivia-creates-new-law-to-give-nature-the-same-equal-rights-as-humans/

['Oma Tirea]

Related thread (not that this one necesarily needs to be closed, TEMO).

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Bolivia is being dragged to the extreme by people who want to control other people. Although protection of the environment is very important, granting essentially human rights to the environment is not going to do anything except result in the oppression of people. Oppression of people should never be the goal of responsible environmentalism.

Here is an example I am aware of from firsthand experience: A couple years back, Bolivia banned all entertainment performances with animals. As a result of this, 24 lions working in circuses in Bolivia (according to their press, under squalid conditions, but I have never seen solid verification of this. Most modern circuses take good care of their animals.) lost their jobs (and so did their trainers). These lions were at least happy enough that they were breeding, as several of the lions 'saved from the circus' were cubs.

These lions were shipped halfway around the world to Colorado in the United States, where they were placed in a sanctuary. In this sanctuary they have lots of room. But they do not have the relationships of the people they were bonded to. Most importantly, they will never again be able to breed. Even the cubs that were 'rescued' are for all intents and purposes, dead already.

Switzerland is doing similar things. As aresult, there are now really bizarre regulations for keeping even common animals like dogs. They are even considering granting plants rights!

[Tsyal Maktoyu]

I see no problem with using land, it's natural that we take from the land, all peoples do. The problem is HOW our culture takes from Gaia without giving back. Certain parts of this legislation will likely be changed in the future, but the symbolism is important, of the mother spirit of nature. Starting with such a mindset would help us live in a more harmonius relationship with Mama Nature, to tread lightly, and give back as much energy as we take. Isn't this what Avatar was all about?

I like what the Iroquois did, they had it right.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_generation_sustainability

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

I see no problem with using land, it's natural that we take from the land, all peoples do. The problem is HOW our culture takes from Gaia without giving back. Certain parts of this legislation will likely be changed in the future, but the symbolism is important, of the mother spirit of nature. Starting with such a mindset would help us live in a more harmonius relationship with Mama Nature, to tread lightly, and give back as much energy as we take. Isn't this what Avatar was all about?

I like what the Iroquois did, they had it right.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_generation_sustainability

Unfortunately, governments often don't 'understand' symbolism and use their regulatory clout to make examples out og people who have committed small infractions. A good example is a guy in England who found a shotgun in his front yard and took it to a police station. He got ten years in prison for doing that. It is much easier to stop a bad idea from becoming a law than reversing the law later. So any regulatory excesses will not be corrected until serious damage has been done.

The danger here is that your land could then sue you for building the wrong kind of house on it, or something similar. A lot of extremist environmental and animal rights groups work hard for that kind of power. Imagine being charged with animal cruelty if you don't brush your dog every day. It is already a crime in the Vatican to not walk your dog twice a day.

The Iroquois principle is very interesting. But it is also a lot different than what is happening in Bolivia. The Iroquois, from what I read in this article, are taking a wholistic approach to looking at things. (The Na`vi, I suspect, are not much different, but their society is not as structured yet, either) They consider both people and environment, and one cannot be properly considered without considering the other. The Bolivian approach seems to be 'environment over people', which is just as wrong as people doing damage to the environment.

Like everything else in life, the best approaches are balanced approaches.