By giving nature legal rights could we halt the ongoing onslaught on vital ecosystems that sustain us? There is currently an upswing in proposals of giving legal rights to ecosystems all around the world as a response to the ongoing onslaught on the natural world.

Ecocide is the loss or damage to, or destruction of ecosystems of a given territory, such that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants has been or will be severely diminished.

The power of laws to prevent ecocide is that it creates a legal duty of care that holds peoples responsible to account for the wellbeing of ecosystems. Its an evolving legal approach that wants to change the traditional legal systems description of nature as property to only be used for human benefit. And its based in the recognition that humankind and Nature have co-evolved and co-exist on the planet. It's basically an attempt to create better stewardship of ecosystems by using the legal system. Also known as Earth jurisprudence. 

The basic assumptions are that all living beings have fundamental “rights”, including the right to exist, to have a habitat and to participate in the evolution of life on Earth. These so called rights are limited by the rights of other beings to the extent necessary to maintain the integrity, balance and health of the communities where they exist. 

I have discussed in a previous post about how there are no metaphysical, god given, rights only applicable to humans as believed in the 17th century. Rights are a human construct. So we have to use moral philosophy, ethics, to derive moral values that can guide our conceptions of rights and duties. Most people in the western world today acknowledges that every human has the same fundamental rights independent of sex, ethnicity, sexuality etc. Many countries also have animal rights and environmental protection but to a very limited extent. This reflects how our values have changed over time, yet they are still entirely human centered. A western legacy that is different from native peoples perception of nature.

The idea that a river is a living being is a strange concept to most westerners but it's nothing new to indigenous and traditional peoples. Thats because indigenous philosophical systems tend to see humans as a part of nature not as separate or dominant over nature as the western system does. 

There are several examples of countries that have applied the indigenous idea of “Rights of Nature” to ecosystems. In 2008 Ecuador wrote in Nature rights into the constitution, acknowledging that all life forms has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles. And Bolivia adopted its Law under the Mother Earth and Integral Development for Living Well in 2012. In 2017, New Zealand passed the Te Awa Tupua Bill which granted the Whanganui River the rights of legal personhood. And in India the holy Ganges and Yamuna Rivers where also granted legal personhood status. In practice this means that if the rivers are threatened by human activity there can be a legal case in court on behalf of the rivers. The fact that such rights could become a reality depend to a large extent on indigenous peoples strong connection to the ecosystem. They have a spiritual connection to the river, see it as sacred, and have a wish to protect it from human destruction. 

There is a shift in values all around the world, driven by non-western traditions and peoples, that will influence legal systems around the planet. Because western ideas and philosophy has failed to halt the ongoing destruction of the natural world people have turned to other sources of inspiration. 

The main goal for many proponents is to achieve an international law against ecocide, habitat destruction, that could safeguard current and future humans and Natures wellbeing. A proposal to amend the Rome Statute, Article 5 - crimes against peace, to include an international crime of Ecocide into the UN legal framework was put forward in 2010. If achieved the crime of Ecocide would be included in Article 5 along with the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crime of aggression. The idea is actually not new, but has been downplayed and dismissed since the 1970s.

It’s too late when someone is already gone. That is the lesson one learns when a close relative dies. I have witnessed up close how truly crushing futile optimism can be. The fact that our human brain refuses to accept sad news and tries to cope by counteracting it with hope right up until the end can be a very cruel thing. Not being mentally prepared for the misery to come causes a shock so severe it puts one in a state of almost complete apathy. I am both lucky and cursed that I have experienced plenty of misery, both in my work as a nurse and in my own life, to know how bad things can get and therefore be somewhat mentally prepared for it. Some may call me a pessimist but I prefer the term realist. It´s not that I don’t have hopes, dreams and wishes just like anybody else. I obviously do. It’s simply that I am aware of the human brain's tendency for denial in face of difficult truths, like one’s own mortality. Denial is not only a coping mechanism but also an inherent trait of the human species. Because we are aware of our own and others suffering we realize our own mortality, which is a terrifying thing, that could lead to fear and depression that hinders reproduction and survival. Thus we need to deny death risks and mortality to keep on going, in evolutionary terms. That’s why we are overly optimistic, despite difficult circumstances, because we are wired for it.

Sure, unwarranted optimism (or reality denial) can be a good thing in certain situations, giving people extra strength to carry on despite high odds of failure. But it can also be very detrimental. For example in the case of climate change or species extinction where there is no going back. In these cases blind optimism in high tech solutions or unknown future discoveries etc. is actually dangerous. We have already perturbed the climate system to such a degree that it may change abruptly and shift into another stability domain, a much hotter and hostile one than we humans have never experienced. This is a fact. It’s not a very pleasant one but denying it doesn’t change anything. It only makes things worse, both in terms of not mitigating the worst impacts and being prepared for them. Without, at least, mental preparation people will be shocked, confused and in a panic when devastation hits. They will likely blame other people around them instead of understanding the underlying reasons for why such events happened. Like two rats in a cage getting electrocuted they won't know what to do but fight to the death.

Accepting one’s own mortality and living in a meaningful way to minimize regrets is a better way to deal with unpleasant facts. Accepting, for example, death, climate change and biodiversity loss doesn’t imply we like it. It simply means that we understand it and that we can take constructive action to build a life that is more meaningful and resilient to future shocks and disturbances. We can all find a life of meaning that is also beneficial for society and nature. A farmer knows this. We simply have to have the courage to strive for it. One day it’s truly too late...