If you wanted to undermine human exceptionalism and interfere with human thriving, a splendid way would be to elevate nature to the moral value of human beings, almost a person, or at least, a rights bearing entity. And indeed, the drive toward what could be described as “nature rights” has already begun, for example, when Ecuador’s new constitution explicitly created the rights of nature to be equal to those of humans.
Now, an environmental campaigner is promoting the same ends from a punitive direction. She is pushing hard to transform serious pollution into a crime against nature (peace) that would be deemed as odious as crimes against humanity are currently. From the story:
A campaign to declare the mass destruction of ecosystems an international crime against peace – alongside genocide and crimes against humanity – is being launched in the UK. The proposal for the United Nations to accept “ecocide” as a fifth “crime against peace”, which could be tried at the International Criminal Court (ICC), is the brainchild of British lawyer-turned-campaigner Polly Higgins. The radical idea would have a profound effect on industries blamed for widespread damage to the environment like fossil fuels, mining, agriculture, chemicals and forestry. Supporters of a new ecocide law also believe it could be used to prosecute “climate deniers” who distort science and facts to discourage voters and politicians from taking action to tackle global warming and climate change. “Ecocide is in essence the very antithesis of life,” says Higgins. “It leads to resource depletion, and where there is escalation of resource depletion, war comes chasing behind. Where such destruction arises out of the actions of mankind, ecocide can be regarded as a crime against peace.”
Under this view, the Exxon Valdez accident could be elevated to a crime equivalent to the Holocaust! But that shouldn’t surprise us. When you attack human exceptionalism–which is what this proposal does quite subversively, you not only undermine intrinsic human value, but also mount an assault against human freedom. The totalitarian impulses of the current anti humanism are exposed clearly in this noxious proposal.
Alas, this proposal is gaining traction at the UN. More details and analysis over at Secondhand Smoke.
April 10th, 2010 | 10:28 pm
Wesley,
Although it doesn’t justify this foolishness, it is interesting to note at least it is posited as a crime aganst humanity, rather than against Gaia.
April 10th, 2010 | 11:33 pm
Now that I re-read this I stand corrected: the proposal doesn’t claim “ecocide” is a crime against humanity, but a crime against peace. Although I don’t see the logic, nature isn’t peaceful.
April 11th, 2010 | 12:21 am
There is nothing “interesting” about this.
These radicals are going to curtail personal posessions and private property, outlawing production and consumption, making us a 3rd world country, if this isn’t happening already.
Making all nations operate at the lowest common denominator.
Great.
April 11th, 2010 | 2:59 am
[...] Smith posts details from the UK article via First Things about the British radical who is campaigning the UN [...]
April 11th, 2010 | 11:54 am
On the other hand, there is a certain trend toward lawlessness in some corporations. Some of it is economic, and some directly affects the health of human beings. China’s massive industries, for example, seem to have no qualms about poisoning children at home and abroad. American companies routinely dumped poisons into the environment last century without regard for the pain, suffering, and death it might have caused.
While extremists may have their own take on proposed legislation, I’m interested in the centrist view. Shouldn’t companies own up to their responsibility to be safe? And when they don’t, don’t citizens have the right to redress? And when individuals within these corporations are found to have harmed others, should they not be liable?
Or does First Things promote a sort-of Kumbaya, warm-fuzzy, all-is-forgiven approach to Big Business?
April 11th, 2010 | 1:16 pm
I am more of the opinion of Jared Diamond in that I do not expect a business to behave as though it is not a business; in other words, a business exists to make money, not to make money responsibly.
The antidote to such an admittedly callous business worldview, of course, is the freedom of the consumer to make consumer choices, as in, to avoid buying products and services from companies with whom they morally disagree (note my personal avoidance of movies starring Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, etc — my list is getting quite long these days!). This is the pressure that urges companies into responsible capitalism, instead of capitalism at any cost, which is a good and great thing to urge. Just not through coercive, dictatorial and anti-human legislation.
And of course, we must avoid being the pot calling the kettle black. Our own lives must reflect the innate dignity of and respect for others before we can demand it of business. Personally, I do not believe the “rights of nature” should even be a topic of discussion until abortion is declared in law as the genocide it truly is, and the unborn child is added to the endangered species list.
April 11th, 2010 | 7:28 pm
I will never understand why some people, like Todd, automatically make the assumption that we’re all for letting corporations get away with polluting, just because we oppose irrational Stupidity like ‘ecoside.’
Todd~ what’s your take on biofuels, and the FACT that 20% of certain crops have been REMOVED from the mouths of millions of people around the globe? No probs with that?
April 11th, 2010 | 11:56 pm
Todd: Of course big business should be held accountable for their pollution. They already are, in fact. Exxon will pay billions for the Valdez accident, in addition to what it already paid to do the clean up. But that is a very far cry from being brought up on criminal charges of a “crime against peace” in the Hague!
April 13th, 2010 | 12:07 am
I find it hard to understand why people persist in caricature to oppose responsible legislation to rein in the excesses of lawless people and corporations. Conservatives have shown this past decade a callous and irresponsible willingness to allow big business to run roughshod in society. They and their corporations should be urged and encouraged to be good citizens.
April 14th, 2010 | 1:57 am
This vandals have destroyed so many environments caused cancer birth defects asthma diabetes wars mislead misinformed confiscated and destryoed healthy food producers farmers poisoned sheep kettle deaths pain and suffering destruction of many forests killing of many native animals and plants poisoning water soil air with petrochemicals heavy metals
if that is not terrorism and corporate greed and profit protected and approved by the government So the responsible emitters Government should be charged US AUS CHINA RUSSIA IRAQ venezuela Brazil etc
Coal which has killed so many miners so many have been diagnosed with cancer asthma breathing difficulties
People died in concentration camps by using petroleum coal gases burning fingers with coal tar This Government should be trialed not companies Companies exist because governments allowed them too.
April 14th, 2010 | 2:08 am
Right for the clean air food water is the basic Human right and not one single company should be allowed to operate by government if it causes any significant environmental impact and health hazard to many species. Now what kind of creature will blow up the top of mountain in Apalache mountain to get a call to kill all existing water supplies flora and fauna food supplies to many people in that area displace them cause landslides erosion and than say UPS I just wanted money
they provided us with electricity but on what expence People in this regions WILL NEVER EVER again HAVE CLEAN AIR WATER AND FOOD native wildlife will never recover.
This is equal to all the wars caused in order to get this supplies from 1900 afterwards.
People with Cancer asthma birth defects dead diabetes asthma etc are the legacy of fossil fuels greed
We dont Blame Exxon Mobil Coal Companies Timber and would like to suggest to them to apologise to World population and to notify us all that from now on they will use solar energy hydro they will pay the clean up cost and will plant trees in order to remove toxic chemicals from soil water air.
PEOPLE OF THE WORLD WILL BE GRATEFUL and WE WILL ACCEPT APOLOGY if the restore this environments we will accept that.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact