Cognitive Coup

I’m not your ordinary blogger. I do this occasionally when I have free time and sufficient motivation to voice my opinion. As such, sometimes I use questionable sources as I’m about to – and only now will I commit such a heinous crime – quote Wikipedia. I have taken classes that have taught Aldo Leopold’s idea of a “land ethic” so I’m comfortable in doing this:

“In [A Sand County Almanac] he wrote that there was a need for a ‘new ethic’, an ‘ethic dealing with man’s relation to land and to the animals and plants which grow upon it.'”

“The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land…[A] land ethic changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it. It implies respect for his fellow-members, and also respect for the community as such.”

“Leopold argues that the next step in the evolution of ethics is the expansion of ethics to include nonhuman members of the biotic community, collectively referred to as ‘the land.’ Leopold states the basic principle of his land ethic as, ‘A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.'”

While I was learning this I could help but to think this was a little odd but not too bad idea. Personally, I think John Muir is a douchebag but I am totally on par with the way he thinks about environmentalism. Politically, it’s impractical and I would be happy with stringent air, water, and soil pollution regulations. This means I don’t agree with Leopold’s land ethic (please re-read this sentence). That’s about the extent of it for me and I will openly admit that on the issue of environmentalism I’m liberal. I really like floating down rivers, fishing, hiking, camping, and clean air. Countless flights between LAX and FCA (in Kalispell, MT) have shown me first hand that you can taste air. It’s not bullshit.

BUT, you have to draw a line somewhere. Ecuador’s new constitution is incredibly stupid. INCREDIBLY. It makes Leopold’s land ethic look conservative. The new constitution gives “Nature” the same rights as human beings.

Taken from the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) website. The page is titled, “Ecuador Adopts Constitution With CELDF Right of Nature Language.”

Article 1 of the new “Rights for Nature” chapter of the Ecuador constitution reads:  “Nature or Pachamama, where life is reproduced and exists, has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution.  Every person, people, community or nationality, will be able to demand the recognitions of rights for nature before the public bodies.”

Seems this might not have been well thought out. Let’s focus on Nature having “the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution.” How is the fisherman supposed to fish? How does the farmer pull weeds, remove crop pests, or EAT. That’s right, how do people eat meat, vegetables, or anything else including dirt? If your food has a “right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles” how do you reap what you have sown and eat dinner? Many (mostly from the left) will tell me I’m taking an idea to the extreme, but the wording allows that to happen. Don’t blame me for someone else’s crappy wording. Aldo Leopold’s land ethic was not intended to subordinate human beings to coyotes, it was intended to make them equal. The land ethic is radical by itself. But when we say that coyotes (because they’re wild animals) don’t have to respect the right of Nature the same way humans do we make ourselves subordinate to other animals in the natural kingdom and WE DON’T HAVE FOOD ANYMORE. Hell, you can’t build a house, irrigation ditch, or mudhut without violating some part of Nature’s “right to exist.” You can’t swap a mosquito, pull a weed, eat, or take medicine lest you murder some poor helpless disease.

Now lets focus on the second part of that constitutional provision: “Every person, people, community or nationality, will be able to demand the recognitions of rights for nature before the public bodies.” This means that I can sue some random housewife in Ecuador for weeding her flower garden. That’s awesome. Maybe we should have a “Save the Herpes” or “Keep AIDS” fundraiser to prevent the destruction of these beautiful members of our biotic community.

So, bottom line? Don’t go to Ecuador unless you want to sue the asshole your wife ran off with for stepping on an ant. That’ll show him! Good luck.

UPDATE: So, if you poop in nature and it destroys a micro-organism in order to promote the life of another, which micro-organism’s “right to exist” should be given more prominence? If you can poop in nature (which I’m not sure the Ecuadorian constitution allows) then you can eat. That’s somewhat encouraging.