I was reading Is A River Alive by Robert Macfarlane and he was talking about a law professor named Christopher Stone who incited a small explosion amongst his students by asking them a "what if" about what it would look like if nature, and its subsidiary parts like rivers and forests, had rights.
They were just all manner of appalled and furious about the concept, about how much of the legal precedent the world runs on would have to be thrown out, about how humans and business interests would survive having to grant a river what a river needs and take its best interests into account like it was a person, and---
Many decades later, the New Zealand parliament passed the Te Awa Tupua Act, recognizing the Whanganui River as a living being with legal personhood.
The paper written by that professor on the concept of nature having personhood, "Should Trees Have Standing?" published in 1972, was at first received as an utter absurdity; it became, in Macfarlane's words, "a landmark in jurisprudence;" and its discovery by Maori legal scholar Jacinta Ruru helped her put together a synthesis of Maori cultural understanding of rivers as personified entities with a legal framework for treating them as such, resulting in the above legislation.
From Stone's paper: "Each time there is a movement to confer rights onto some new entity, each time the proposal is bound to sound odd or frightening or laughable . . . this is partly because until the rightless thing recieves its rights we cannot see it as anything but a thing for the use of 'us'---those who are holding rights at the time."
That is: human worldviews tend to be built upon, and along, existing lines of categorization, and changing or challenging the categorization results in a sort of mental pandemonium, a chaotic and complicated wilderness that defies explanation and understanding, and requires significant amount of efforts including mental remapping to figure out.
And a lot of people compare their comfortable existence as some of the (comparatively fewer) rightsholders in a world built around the others' nonrights, compared with the welter and chaos of their potential as some of the (comparatively many) rightsholders with many more rightsholders to take into account and many fewer rightless entities to own and exploit and use, and cling with every fiber of their beings to the call for the rightless things to stay rightless, for the greater good of the existing rightsbearers and for their own continued comfort.
They do this when even a little understanding would put to rest many of their fears. Many, many groups have gained rights over the centuries of human history, including both rightless entities being granted rights at all and rightsholding entities being granted more rights, and humanity has not been toppled by any of it.
We adapt. Our understanding grows. Our worldviews expand and complexify and advance themselves along new lines. We hold concepts in our heads that many of our ancestors would have boggled at, and we do so with ease. Hopefully our descendants manage concepts that we boggle at.
The willingness to explore new concepts is what helps them become. An infinity of shining truths awaits our approach and interaction, our bringing them into being and our understanding of them.
Everything we do today and everything we are today was impossible, right up until it wasn't. The difference is in the effort to make them be.
Things are often complicated. This calls for further consideration, not dismissal.