Are rivers and forests people like corporations are?

If a river have same legal rights than a person, we could not discriminate a river because of sex, age or religion? And a person should be not polluted nor overfished? Really looks like a nonsense, more likely to be placed in Wonderland than in real world. In my opinion, people should have people rights, and environment should have environment rights - both kind of rights are very different...
 
Corporations are people in the manner that Unions or Advocacy Groups are "People". Certain rights ascribed to an individual are interpreted to also apply to coalitions of individuals. Other than that....can't wait for nonsensical environmental leftism to blow up in our faces once the current political and economic environment no longer has the means or inclination to indulge in irrational nonesense. Of course I did not actually read the article....so maybe?
 
Kakapo said:
If a river have same legal rights than a person, we could not discriminate a river because of sex, age or religion? And a person should be not polluted nor overfished? Really looks like a nonsense
Click to expand...

You completely miss the point here. This is all about legal possibilities in how a river/mountain/etc. can "defend itself". This is mostly a philosophical point, but one that would open a wide range of opportunities for humans to sue others that are polluting/threatening ecosystems. Is it a bit farfetched, maybe yes, but that depends on your viewpoints, for native Americans this would make a lot more sense than for followers of Trumpism. Personally I find this an interesting opportunity that would give the environment a bit more protection from predatory nonsensical human behavior.
 
Yep, thanks for explanation lintworm. For sure I miss the point, as I not even readed the article, just went stranged by the title of the post and the short explanation. Anyway, all measures endosed to protect nature are welcome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top