#indigenous perspectives

The philosophy of the rights of nature represents a paradigm shift in how we view and interact with the natural world. Traditionally, nature has been seen as a resource for human use, but this perspective advocates for recognizing the intrinsic value and legal rights of natural entities. This philosophy challenges anthropocentric worldviews and seeks to establish a more harmonious relationship between humans and the environment by recognizing the rights of ecosystems, species, and natural processes.

Key Themes in the Philosophy of the Rights of Nature

Intrinsic Value of Nature:

Central to this philosophy is the idea that nature has value beyond its utility to humans. Natural entities have their own right to exist, thrive, and evolve.

This perspective emphasizes the moral duty to respect and protect nature for its own sake.

Legal Personhood for Nature:

One of the most revolutionary aspects of this philosophy is the proposal to grant legal personhood to natural entities such as rivers, forests, and ecosystems.

Legal personhood would allow nature to have rights that can be defended in court, similar to corporations or individuals.

Interconnectedness of Life:

This philosophy highlights the interconnectedness of all life forms. Human well-being is deeply linked to the health of the natural environment.

By protecting the rights of nature, we also ensure the long-term sustainability and health of human communities.

Ecocentrism vs. Anthropocentrism:

The rights of nature philosophy advocates for an ecocentric approach, which places ecological well-being at the center of decision-making.

This contrasts with anthropocentric approaches that prioritize human interests over ecological health.

Ethical Responsibility:

This philosophy asserts that humans have an ethical responsibility to protect and preserve nature.

It calls for a shift from exploitation and domination to stewardship and respect.

Indigenous Perspectives:

Many Indigenous cultures have long recognized the rights of nature and the deep connection between humans and the environment.

The philosophy of the rights of nature often draws on these Indigenous worldviews and knowledge systems.

Environmental Justice:

The rights of nature philosophy is closely linked to environmental justice, which seeks to address the disproportionate impact of environmental degradation on marginalized communities.

Recognizing the rights of nature can help ensure that environmental protections are applied equitably and justly.

Global Movement:

The movement for the rights of nature is gaining traction worldwide, with several countries and localities recognizing legal rights for natural entities.

Notable examples include Ecuador, which enshrined the rights of nature in its constitution, and New Zealand, which granted legal personhood to the Whanganui River.

Challenges and Criticisms:

Critics of the rights of nature argue that granting legal rights to nature could lead to legal and practical complications.

There are also debates about how to balance the rights of nature with human development needs.

Future Implications:

Recognizing the rights of nature has profound implications for law, governance, and ethics.

It could lead to new forms of environmental governance that prioritize ecological sustainability and the well-being of all life forms.

“I always think of the old analogy of a simple bicycle. Or as someone explained to me, OK, like if I stole your bike, and then told you later that I was sorry for stealing it, that acknowledges that it’s your bike but I never gave the bike back to you”

Monsters

People who deny the persistence of settler colonialism are like the heroes in American horror films, astonished that the monster would have trouble with them. Denial is a key component of the plotlines, the evil might get you if you look too deeply at the horror. You can only look between fingers on a hand that covers your eyes.

The promise of heroic resolution is a false assurance. Revenge films provide another more useful storyline for addressing the following questions: What is a monster? (A monster is one who has been wronged and seeks justice.) Why do monsters interrupt? (Monsters interrupt when the injustice is nearly forgotten. Monsters show up when they are denied; yet there is no understanding the monster.) How does one get rid of a monster? (There is no permanent vanquishing of a monster; monsters can only be deferred, disseminated; the door to their threshold can only be shut on them for so long.).