When we were in Ecuador, much of the local political discussion was around their efforts to write a new constitution for the country. I’d heard that there were some significantly progressive elements to the work, but this is the first I’ve seen some of the articles being considered: as is perhaps unsurprising for a nation well-endowed with natural resources and reliant on maintaining those resources to support the economy, they’ve done something terrific: they’ve not only written rights for nature (personified as “Pachamama”), but they’ve acknowledged the importance of evolution.
Art. 1. 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
organisms. The application and interpretation of these rights will
follow the related principles established in the Constitution.Art. 2. Nature has the right to an integral
restoration. This integral restoration is independent of the obligation
on natural and juridical persons or the State to indemnify the people
and the collectives that depend on the natural systems.In the cases of severe or permanent environmental impact, including
the ones caused by the exploitation on non renewable natural resources,
the State will establish the most efficient mechanisms for the
restoration, and will adopt the adequate measures to eliminate or
mitigate the harmful environmental consequences.Art. 3. The State will motivate natural and
juridical persons as well as collectives to protect nature; it will
promote respect towards all the elements that form an ecosystem.Art. 4. The State will apply precaution and
restriction measures in all the activities that can lead to the
extinction of species, the destruction of the ecosystems or the
permanent alteration of the natural cycles.The introduction of organisms and organic and inorganic material
that can alter in a definitive way the national genetic patrimony is
prohibited.Art. 5. The persons, people, communities and
nationalities will have the right to benefit from the environment and
form natural wealth that will allow wellbeing.The environmental services are cannot be appropriated; its
production, provision, use and exploitation, will be regulated by the
State.
It’s awfully fuzzy on exactly how they’re going to protect the rights of Nature (will she have lawyers working on her behalf?), but the sentiment is excellent.
I don’t know what it means, but it sounds like something good… is it?
but they’ve acknowledged the importance of evolution. I don’t see any mention of evolution in that section.
Oh, wait, never mind. I missed that “processes in evolution” the first read-through.
[emphasis mine]
Random items:
Here’s some more context from Democracy Now!:
“EXCLUSIVE: Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa on the Lawsuit Against Chevron, Eradicating Foreign Debt and Why He Says ‘Ecuador is No Longer for Sale'”
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/11/exclusive_ecuadorean_president_rafael_correa_on
“Chevron Lobbies White House to Pressure Ecuador to Stop $12 Billion Amazon Pollution Lawsuit”
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/5/chevron_lobbies_white_house_to_pressure
Also, the new Bolivian constitution, not (yet! :)) in effect, says people have “the right to a healthy, protected, and balanced environment” and makes it the duty of the government to “conserve, protect, and use natural resources and biodiversity in a sustainable manner.” It establishes a special Agroenvironmental Court to adjudicate these provisions, and encourages independent popular action in defense of the environment.
And, from Manu Chao, “Por el suelo”:
Pachamama te veo tan triste
Pachamama me pongo a llorar
I appreciate most of the sentiments, but the throwing in of extremely vague kitchen-sink clauses into the constitution is likely to do the country more harm than good. The American constitution’s (relative) brilliance is in its brevity.
You know what they say with constitutions: the twentieth times the charm. I’m sure this one will work just fine, and no one will ever abuse it.
The new draft constitution will also give President Correa new powers. Sounds like someone is jealous of Chavez. ;-)
Nature as opposed to what? The supernatural?
Or maybe it’s nature as opposed to humans? OK, how are humans and human activity not part of the natural world? Are we magic now and no longer subject to natural laws? ‘Cause I didn’t get the memo, if so.
1) Ecuador has oil.
2) Ecuador is enshrining environmental protection in its
constitution.
3) Ecuador acknowledges the fact of evolution in
its constitution.
ergo: Ecuador has weapons of mass destruction and
is harboring Al Qaeda.
The American constitution’s (relative) brilliance is in its brevity.
And the fact that it describes what powers the government does NOT have. It’s fairly unique in that.
I don’t get it. Nature needs protection from us? That’s a first. Next time, a tidal wave or hurricane winds are bearing down on me, I won’t have to run and hide.
Hmm, OK, if humans are not part of the natural world, then you could sue in Ecuadorian courts under Article 4 for the abolition of vaccines that have the potential to wipe out the natural organisms that depend on infecting humans. Or, if humans are part of the natural environment, then under Article 5 the State appropriates the right to regulate their use and exploitation. Perfect.
I think someone needs to run the intellectual lawnmower over this lovely poetic nonsense from the Marketing department, and make it say what they really mean instead. Anyone want to give it a shot?
I love this idea tho- don’t you? Nature has a supreme status above even humans INHO- and I wish we had established ‘earth-rights’ before even human rights in our constituation in the USA.
Ever hear of pollution or endangered species?
“The introduction of organisms and organic and inorganic material that can alter in a definitive way the national genetic patrimony is prohibited.”
This could be used to block genetic engineering. Which seems like a potentially anti-science position.
The American constitution’s (relative) brilliance is in its brevity.
Disagree, it’s been the bane of responsible interpretation. Better wordy and clear than brief and vague. As it stands people have managed to argue their ways into/out-of: Habeas corpus, eminent domain, cruel and unusual punishment, lack of due process, extrajudicial imprisonment, limits on speech, and abolition of arms appropriate for the 2nd amendment’s intended purpose.
The new draft constitution will also give President Correa new powers. Sounds like someone is jealous of Chavez. ;-)
Well, I’m going to read the document itself
http://issuu.com/restrella/docs/constitucion_del_ecuador
and get my news and analysis from Spanish-language sources. I emailed the AP – which seems to be the principal source for news on Central and South America in the US – to complain when they reported incorrectly that the Bolivian constitution would allow Morales to be re-elected indefinitely (Reuters got it right). They never responded; nor, apparently, did they urge the papers that had used the report to correct the error.
Nature needs protection from Sarah Palin.
The Palin administration has allowed Chevron to triple the amount of toxic waste it pours into the waters of Cook Inlet. This, even though the number of beluga whales in the bay has collapsed from 1,300 to 350 – the point of extinction – because of pollution and increased ship traffic.
I hope I’m wrong but I predict Palin and what’s his name will win a very close election. Then our country will become the exact opposite of Ecuador.
Captain has it right with this
The Constitution of Russia is beautiful and guarantees all sorts of rights.
Correa spouts a lot of nonsense (praise for Cuba’s democracy, etc.) that makes me very uncomfortable, but I don’t follow Ecuadorian politics closely enough to know what is just rhetoric and what is serious.
Where are the teeth? Where are the penalties?
Seriously what happens if a party, president or government doesn’t follow this law?
In America it’s easy to trash the constitution because there is so little we can do quickly to stop someone hell bent on subverting it.
Pachamama as nature personified? Sounds a little pagan to me, folks. Aren’t we supposed to be against superstition and irrational beliefs?
I am ecuadorian (I live in Guayaquil) and I can attest that the new constitution is a very good piece of work (it has some things that are factually wrong, but it is an overwhelming improvement in almost every aspect).
Unfortunately, Professor, you would not BELIEVE the amount of shit that interest groups have flinged against it.
And you can guess who is the most vocal interest group against it: the Catholic Church. Even though the new constitution does not allow gay marriage or abortion, believers have sent massive chain e-mails literally saying it does and quoting the constitution’s relevant articles as if they supported their argument (what a feat of cognitive dissonance!). One of the arguments running around even says that “every person has the same rights” (a basic tenet of every constitution, even the one currently in force) is literally what will cause the collapse of society, because it will force schools to hire pederasts as teachers. Peppered, of course, with fundie Bible quotes to give this trash some flavor.
I have them, in Spanish, if you want them.
And these idiots are the overwhelming majority! It’s no wonder we still have coat hanger abortionists and many repressed homosexuals.
Luckily the overwhelming majority doesn’t have access to the Internet and they are low-information poor voters, so they will very likely vote Yes with the regime’s wishes. That’s assuming, of course, that the 95% of Catholics here are just like every other Catholic: non-practicing ones, because the churches have been handing out pamphlets full of lies and terror about gays and abortion, blaming them on the new constitution.
Sorry to say this, but I’m appalled to have been born in Ecuador, and if I could, I would move away today. Screw the Galápagos, this place is marred with stupidity left and right.
Constitutions (including the American) are doomed to vague language. Brevity requires it; evolving political circumstances subverts it; and distortions created by evolving language guarantees it. Any constitution that doesn’t include mechanisms for changing itself is doomed for failure. It’s just a matter of time.
I’m partial to common law.
(Thanks for the link SC. Keep an open mind.)
What are you talking about PZ, nature has lawyers.
Haven’t you heard of Landslides and Flash Floods, Attorneys at Law?
Pachamama is quichua for Nature. The quichuas, brutally murdered and enslaved by the Spanish religious when they invaded, were animists.
Untrue in spirit. The only new power that the President may invoke is the dissolution of Congress, but once he invokes it, a referendum must take place immediately, to decide whether either Congress is dissolved or the President is summarily fired from his job. One or the other.
In fact, the emergency powers of the President are greatly reduced in the new constitution.
The sentiment may be good, but it seems to be lacking a requirement for testable, emperical evidence in determining what is happening and what restorations are appropriate. Without that, these clauses could be used by anyone in power to do just about anything they want.
No country has ever introduced common law of its own free will. Not even Louisiana. Why should judges have the power to in effect create law?
Thanks for the link SC.
You’re most welcome. I look forward to reading it myself.
Yeah…
Set aside the sheer lunacy of trying to implement “rights of nature.” Just set that aside…
How can a materialist talk about “natural rights”? How can natural rights even begin to make sense in a materialist universe? Are rights material in nature? What kind of materials compose natural rights? Metals? Noble gasses? Complex organic compounds? Maybe they’re made from some kind of pasta? Are rights made of spaghetti? And if so, do they fly? Where can I get a pound of rights?
And if natural rights do exist, how can an empiricist believe in them? Can you see them? Taste them? Touch them? What color are rights? Pink? So, how many empiricists believe in Invisible Pink Rights?
Natural rights only make sense on the context of natural law. They make no sense in a materialistic, radically empiricist world-view. No moral obligations of any kind make sense in a materialistic, radically empiricist world-view.
…and the countdown to the Allende moment starts….now.
Or is that too bitter and cynical?
The language of the law is something you can debate all day. The reality of Latin American is there is no infrastructure to enforce whatever may be on the books.
hmmmm?
Do you find it frustrating when people consider concepts beyond the “materialistic, radically empiricist world-view” that you have laid out for them? Maybe this is a sign of inner conflict…that your labeling of them is hasty and in fact, dead wrong.
No moral obligations of any kind make sense in a materialistic, radically empiricist world-view.
Nonsense. You can’t get from “moral obligations can’t be derived from the laws of nature” to “moral obligations make no sense if materialism is true” — there are other ways to make sense of moral obligations. And even if there weren’t, so what? That wouldn’t be an argument against materialism being true. Nor is it sufficient as an argument for materialists to abandon their sense of moral obligation, although it could lead to them choosing to do so — but why would you want to encourage that?
Anyway, the discussion here (aside from your post) seems to be about designating rights for nature, not natural rights.
Do you find it frustrating when people consider concepts beyond the “materialistic, radically empiricist world-view” that you have laid out for them?
Hey, JK says that’s “lunacy”. He gives no basis for that judgment — he’s set the giving of reasons aside.
I’m a staunch materialist — that’s my understanding of the metaphysical nature of the universe. But I can see no reason why, under that understanding, there’s any “lunacy” to designating and implementing “rights of nature” in the sense it’s used here (“nature” being something more narrow like “biosphere”).
TM: Moral obligations are composed of what kind of material?
The urge to turn back to nature and live by its laws brings a big danger with it. If nature’s rights trump human rights, it would be easy to construe groups and institutions who are “more alienated from the natural way” than others. For example homosexuals, women who do not follow nature’s call to reproduce, scientists who try to bend the natural laws, any “nature-denying” contradiction born out of civilization and culture.
I also second the notion that Pachamama, becoming a juridic person, is an implementation of a deity which will unavoidably start to behave like all her ancestors. I doubt the “progressiveness” of the “progressives” who helped manufacture this Quechua version of “one nation under God”, I rather call it pandering to the superstitions of the disenfranchised to obtain legitimation for nation rebuilding after the south american dictatorship years. We don’t need no stinkin’ Pachamama, no Virgen de Guadalupe, and by the way, no Che Guevara T-Shirts. All this identity and raza bullshit leads to unquestioned authoritarianism, endangers ideological minorities and justifies the emerging left-talking new rackets, who reveal their readiness to betray the “socialism of the 21st century” with their potpourri conjuration of indian roots, shaman medicine, catholicism, hero military leaders, unreflected anti-gringoism, and cheap marxism living on oil revenues.
Of course, nature is to be protected. As our and our descendants’ common property, not as our freakin’ Mama. How about some adults writing a constitution for once? And there is something to be said about the emphasis on the state in that document. What changes here is the property right: From monopolist oligarchs to central authority in the trustworthy hands of a green-leftist-nationalist movement, already bought by economic interest. I get it, in a Country run by Reps and Dems this must be a big tentation. But let’s get real here! It’s the same Kool-Aid with a new flavor. I would have prefered some clarity along the lines of “the country to those who work it” instead of this new age holy pipe dream. Concerning the environmental policies: Mr Correa himself prosecuted environmental NGOs, as soon as they got too close to the goal of making the loudmouth promises of this green constitution real, as in the case of Mr Ohearn-Gimenez in 2007, who was working with the Police to stop the business with shark-fins, re-legalized by Mr Correa. His Pachamama is obviously not Mr Ohearn’s Pachamama.
And the fact that it describes what powers the government does NOT have. It’s fairly unique in that.
Only the Bill of Rights, which many of the founders considered superfluous precisely because the Constitution was meant to delineate the powers that the government does have. The 9th and 10th amendments make that explicit, but they’re frequently ignored — mere inkblots, according to Robert Bork.
Define morality in a way that is not consistent with materialism.
#16 The Constitution was intentionally written in such a manner that it could be understood by the layman. Rewording and clarification isn’t going to curtail government abuse because it will be interpreted it to conform to the political agendas of those occupying office, or it will simply be ignored. The abuses you listed were committed by Abraham Lincoln to a much greater extent than has been done today, and during a time when government was but a tiny fraction of its current size. The 1st Amendment clearly stipulates that, “Congress shall make no law…” How do you propose to make it more clear than that?
TM: Moral obligations are composed of what kind of material?
There’s no such requirement under materialism. You might as well ask the same question of the rules of chess, or words, or concepts, or algorithms, or theorems, or integers, etc. There are rules of chess, words, concepts, algorithms, theorems, integers, etc. regardless of whether materialism is true.
And yet materialists continue to do good things
The 1st Amendment clearly stipulates that, “Congress shall make no law…” How do you propose to make it more clear than that?
It’s what follows that which isn’t clear: “respecting an establishment of religion, …”. Certainly as used in common speech today, these words are highly ambiguous. “respecting” probably means “regarding”, but “an establishment” could refer either to formation or to an institution. We should be glad that the SCOTUS has interpreted this broadly and has adopted Jefferson’s “separation of church and state”.
Which is more nobler….someone who does good when it is not required? …or someone who does good for fear of everlasting damnation?
Someone who does good when it isn’t required is an idiot. The whole reason you do good is because it’s what a given situation requires.
Thanks, Rudd-O, but as someone who’s half Ecuadorean, I know that the indigenous people were animists. I’m just wondering how going from the Blessed Mother to Mother Nature is an improvement. Sounds like a new name for the same thing to me. Sounds also like someone is trying to throw us a bone: Hey, we’ll mention “evolution” in our new constitution if we can introduce another, and very old, religion, namely paganism. Again, how is this good?
you are a sock-puppet
Or perhaps a Machiavellian.
TM: If you are familiar with the history of philosophy, then you know that concepts, integers, & theorems – like laws of logic – really have been a problem for materialism (& for radical empiricism). They are not material entities and so, if materialism is true, they are not real. And of they are not real, well, then logic, knowledge, even the cogency of language is radically undermined.
When we use language, logic, or mathematics – or when we make moral claims or observe moral obligations – we are not acting in way that is inconsistent with materialism. In those cases – which is to say constantly – we are acting as if immaterial entities are real & meaningful.
Ever hear of pollution or endangered species?
Oh yeah. Weren’t there oxygen producing microorganisms way back that polluted the environment with that deadly pollutant oxygen? That did endanger all those obligate anaerobes. Nature sure was crippled by that. So, what you are really talking about is protecting us and not nature. Then why not say that? We will not allow the environment to change? We will stop evolution? Do you think we will be successful in that? Do you think nature will let us?
Since it’s in their constitution, I’d imagine environmental protection would be a matter for the courts. Perhaps any citizen could bring up sort of class action suit on behalf of a damaged ecosystem? In either case, it’s a step in the right direction!
#43 It’s both naive and shortsighted to think that government malfeasance is due to a lack of clarity in the Constitution and that it can be abated by wording it differently. Constitutional safeguards are routinely ignored, under the pretext of public safety, with predictable support from flag-waving sycophants (depending on who happens to be in power). One problem is the moral disconnect of government. People enlist government to do what they would call the cops on their neighbors for doing. The other problem is the unwillingness of people to address the root of the problem because it’s too inconvenient. Many expressed outrage on this blog when police-state tactics were used against protesters at the national conventions. How many of you reading this would be willing to ostracize a beer-drinking buddy who comes over on the weekend to watch football if you knew that he participated in that abuse? If you’re unwilling to do that then talking about electing the right people and fixing government is nothing but a way to avoid taking responsibility.
Wow – country that actually puts the interests of nature/Pachamama/the environment on a par with the interests of people or corporations.
I’m startled speechless.
Go Ecuador!
“you are a sock-puppet/Or perhaps a Machiavellian.”
You are unclear on the concept of what a sock-puppet is. Or perhaps you consider that your rejection of reality allows you to define it however you please.
Go Ecuador! One can only hope that something like this really happens, and they have good ways to enforce it. At least someone has the right idea.
Posted by: Josh L @ #20
Not a single fucking thing!
ROFLMAO!!! I don’t believe a single word of that! Nor should anyone else, the Ecuadorian government is as corrupt as they come. Watch this documentary to get some idea.
http://www.sharkwater.com/synopsis.htm
Coming from a very close South American country (Perú) to live in the U.S., one of the first things I noticed years ago, which astounded me (and got me so interested in these things, which lead me to this site among other things), was how controversial were evolution and many other scientific subjects in general, due to religious dogma. I mean, the Dover trial, in two-fucking-thousand-five, the sixth-fucking-year of the twenty-fucking-first century. It was ridiculous beyond belief.
Evangelicals are minority in my home country, and I guess in Ecuador and other S.A. countries as well (perhaps not in Brazil), and most high-school level people have learned uncontroversially (and boringly, I must say) the theory of evolution in school.
In such Catholic countries as mentioned, for most people religion is at best a boring tradition, but benign anyway (superficially as we here know). In any case, not many people care about it (only go to church for weddings or funerals).
This is utterly absurd. There’s no basis for law here, just a list of wishful thinking.
-jcr
#43 TM,
The language of the first amendment is not ambiguous, and its terms were well understood when it was written. Most European countries at the time had an official state religion, which was referred to at the “established” religion of any given country.
Established religions typically were able to collect taxes (mandatory tithes) with the backing of the state.
-jcr
I’m inclined to agree with the wording of the constitution despite the inclusion of the word evolution because, as phrased, it simply implies the natural progression in nature (e.g. the “evolution” of the landscape/forested areas, biodiversity).
The bible tells us that we are stewards of the earth and it seems perfectly acceptable to spell this out.
“The bible tells us that we are stewards of the earth and it seems perfectly acceptable to spell this out.” – Pete Rooke, #60
The Bible tells us “Then God blessed them (Adam and Eve) and said, “Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and govern it.” – Genesis 1:28
Sounds more like over-population than stewardship.
#30: How can a materialist talk about “natural rights”? How can natural rights even begin to make sense in a materialist universe?
There’s a philosophical difference between recognizing rights which supposedly exist “out there”, and *creating* rights through social agreement, and the quoted language seems interpretable either way. It’s not as if human rights make any more intrinsic sense in a materialist universe, but we can agree to grant each other rights to not be murdered, raped, robbed. Or grant nature a right to not be polluted. There are other ways of phrasing it — “thou shall not pollute”, but rights language might help reasoning or compliance.
I’m not terribly interested in legal issues, but I think this is important. Environmental damage is one of those examples of a person or people taking something that has been self-perpetuating and sustaining for perhaps the last 10, 000 years in some cases, or millions in others, and bringing it to an end.
An ecosystem is something that should last through the ages (in historical terms), and therefore an example where you have to consider not just the rights of other people in the world, but other people in time. Some of these proposed articles actually address the rights of future generations, legally, and that’s a step in the right direction.
Weing (#50), you are either a troll arguing in bad faith ar a real idiot. Are you seriously comparing the build-up of oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere–which started with the evolution of photosynthesis at least 3.5 billion years ago and then took 2 billion years to reach just 1% of the current level (which was achieved about 350 million years ago)–to the well-documented effects of anthropogenic pollution and habitat destruction over the last 150 years?
Why is it difficult to accept that some of us like functioning ecosystems and current levels of biodiversity for their own sake, and simply wish to preserve the small fraction that is left? The “save ecosystems and biodiversity to save ourselves” argument is, in my view, powerful and correct, but it is not the primary motivation for me, many others of my acquaintance, nor, I think, of these Ecuadorian constitutional articles.
The claim that “hey, humans are part of nature and so anything we do is natural and therefore OK” argument is tiresome, self-serving, and stupid.
I guess I must be the latter. That was only one example of a change in the earth’s environment, there have been many other extinctions since then. Somehow nature has survived. It is easy for me to accept that some of us like the current ecosystems and biodiversity, in fact, I think that all of us do. What I find difficult to accept, is thinking that we can in fact prevent our ecosystems and our climate from changing and the current biodiversity from evolving. Our climate will continue to change, some to our liking and some to our dislike. We need to adapt and prepare for changes. And yes we are part of nature and anything we do is natural and it also has consequences. I never said it was OK. That is irrelevant. Right now, we may be experiencing cooling for a few years before warming resumes, probably with a vengeance. Have you considered what would be happening during this brief cooling cycle if we hadn’t had the warming of the past 150 years or so?
I assume it would resemble the “Little Ice Age” that (may have) occured a few hundred years ago. Extant ecosystems survived that fine; I am unaware of any extinctions attributed to small and temporary natural climate swings like that. Sure, climate has changed many times over the 3.5-billion year history of life on Earth, and living things are still around. Sure, over the long term extinction is the norm rather than species survival. Not the point. It is my contention that the insults to (otherwise) healthy and functioning ecosystems that have occured at the direct hand of industrialized humans over the past 150 years or so are unprecendented in both rate and extent for any time period relevant to humans. I think it’s a shame. And I don’t think that measurable amounts of synthetic herbicides in rainwater, large-scale slash-&-burn tropical deforestation, mountaintop-removal mining, or acidic precipitation (to name just a few such insults) count in any meaningful sense as “natural.”
The claim that “hey, humans are part of nature and so anything we do is natural and therefore OK” argument is tiresome, self-serving, and stupid.
I agree. You can characterize my own position as, “Humans are part of nature. so anything we do is by definition natural–but not everything in nature must be regarded as good just because it’s natural.”
It might be more to the point to consider humanity a destructive natural force on average. Good in the short term for humanity, bad in the short term for the rest of the planet (don’t let’s forget “Nature” encompasses more than the Earth), who knows in the long term.
Guess it depends on what the meaning of the word
“is”“natural” is. If the antonym is “supernatural” I agree with you 100%. It can also be used in a sense in which the antonym is something like “non-natural.” Although the latter is how I was using the term, I do not wish to defend that definition beyond knowing it when I see it.Ooh! This isn’t completely OT here. I’ve been waiting for a chance to mention this exhibit
http://www.newmuseum.org/exhibitions/399/after_nature
at the New Museum on the Bowery. For anyone in NYC or planning to visit there, I highly recommend it (and the museum as a whole; and, really, the building alone is worth a trip). Great exhibit. Perhaps not pro-science enough for my taste, but really outstanding. The Werner Herzog film is hypnotic.
…knowing it when I see it.
OK. Disease is natural, we can agree on that. Which of the following disease-fighting techniques, if all or any, in plants or animals (including humans), are “non-natural”:
– Dietary changes? (Voluntary or involuntary)
– Behavioral changes? (Voluntary or involuntary)
– Physical removal from the disease-prone habitat?
– Vaccination?
– Breeding of disease-resistant individuals?
– Culling of disease-prone individuals?
– Direct genetic engineering?
– Disinfecting by direct or indirect heat, steam, or boiling?
– Disinfectants made from essential oils, such as lavender, tea tree, and pine?
– Disinfectants made from refined petroleum-based chemicals?
– Radioactive bacteriocidal/virucidal/fungicidal techniques?
– Disinfecting by vacuum or freezing?
Where do you draw the line, and why?
Posted by: Sophiasaurus | September 7, 2008 3:58 AM
Go Ecuador! One can only hope that something like this really happens, and they have good ways to enforce it. At least someone has the right idea.
And atheists find a home. Warms my heart, really. I’m sure you’ll all love it there. When are you moving?
yawn
Why should judges have the power to in effect create law?
They probably know the law pretty well, that’s all they do. And they are supposed to be impartial, so why not have them create laws? Most judges are elected, at the state level not the federal.
speedwell:
Really. I don’t. In fact, I’m going to avoid drawing any lines at all by inventing a third category: natural, non-natural, and kind-of-natural. I’ll also stipulate that no extant organisms other than humans are capable of non-natural and kind-of-natural.
@#71 Salt?
What a sweet thing to wish upon your fellow Americans. About equivalent, in as many words, of telling them to go to hell.
Har har.
And, by GOD, you know EXACTLY where it is, don’t you? You make a left down the branch in the turnpike where a sign says “rational free-thinking liberal atheists who tried to aim for a better and godlesss world, turn here”…because we all know that it takes a bit of deception to clean house of the vermin, don’t we? You know, “lying for Jesus” and all that. You really got us all by the balls, atheists and foreigners alike, don’t you?
Because you know everything there is to know about what it means to be a real American, about how to be a real man. Am I right?
What a noble fellow you are. What an upstanding American. What a superb role model for children. What a magnificent example of a human being you are.
You are not salt. You’re not that boringly colorless and crystaline. You are much more sophisticated and aromatic than that. You’re just wet shit.
“I assume it would resemble the “Little Ice Age” that (may have) occured a few hundred years ago. Extant ecosystems survived that fine; I am unaware of any extinctions attributed to small and temporary natural climate swings like that.”
If I recall correctly, the european human ecosystem experienced crop failures, resorted to cannibalism, and survived, as you said, “just fine”.
I am not entirely sure that changes to ecosystems in the past 150 years are unprecedented as they relate to humans. I mean, about 10-15,000 years ago, New York was under a sheet of ice. But I will agree that there have been rapid changes. I think we will continue to see changes. Do you think an asteroid crashing into the earth, volcanoes belching out lava and noxious gases are any less insulting? I think we have to be aware of the consequences of our effect on the earth and prepare for them. I do not think that we can maintain our climate as is, or as some ideal of 150 years ago. That is just the way life is. Why cry about change when it will happen any way, with or without us? Do you really think you could stop it? That’s the part I don’t understand.
There’s no such thing as a “human ecosystem.” There are ecosystems that include humans, and these days there may be no ecosystems that are not affected by humans (the theme of McKibben’s The End of Nature). Even the changes associated with the real, serious Ice Ages to which you refer were slow enough that effects on overall biodiversity and ecosystem diversity were minimal. Most of the species that were around then but not now were probably killed off by the expanding human population as a fofeshadowing of things to come.
No, of course I am not so naive as to think that climate change can be prevented, either in general or in specific reference to the inevitable greenhouse warming that’s coming right up. I don’t see much likelihood of preventing further population- and industry-related damage either. But I am interested in minimizing, to the extent possible, the effects of these changes on what remains of even quasi-natural biological systems. My life has been enriched immeasurably by my experiencing of rainforests, coral reefs, deserts, elephants, polar bears, and frogs. I inherited these products of evolutionary milennia from previous generations, and I’d like to think my daughter’s grandchildren might enjoy the same. I think it’s the ultimate in hubris for our species to so rashly dispense with so many others for reasons of short-term need and greed. I think that populations are more important than money and that ecosystems are more important than, well, pretty much anything else.
The shrugging attitude–which I do not mean to falsely attribute to you–that there’s nothing that can be done about it, oh well, so let’s take a drive in the Escalade and get some burgers…I find infuriating and selfish. Ditto the head-in-the-sand ignorance so carefully incubated by modern culture.
On the other hand, I’m a confirmed misanthrope and pessimist and I strongly suspect that me and my fellow humans are damning our planet to a long and unpleasant hell. But I’m not at all happy about it, and I try to do what I can to slow it down.
They have written veneration of Astarte/Kybele/Shub Niggurath into their constitution?
Ever Their praises, and abundance to the Black Goat of the Woods. Iä! Shub-Niggurath! The Goat with a Thousand Young!
Iä! Shub-Niggurath! The Black Goat of the Woods with a Thousand Young!
Ho hum. Sounds nice. Likely dangerous. More likely a complete mess.
Congrats to professor Myers for visiting Galapagos! I’m from Guayaquil yet I’ve never been to the islands, the airfare and staying expenditures are out of my budget, and I also don’t wanna risk being treated like a second rate citizen since foreign tourists are preferred over nationals. Nice that you guys find our thirdworldness charming, please keep the money coming.
Last year, PZ’s champion, President Correa, legalized the “incidental” catch of shark and sent Sea Shepherd’s O’Hearn-Gimenez packing for making public a cache of 3 tons of shark fins discovered days after the aforementioned measure was decreed http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_070804_2.html Correa said on National TV “No gringo is going to tell us what to do”. He also put a price over the Amazon forest asking 1st World types for money in exchange not to drill oil: http://www.northstarwriters.com/lb076.htm way to enshrine the jungle heh? Correa made the Amazon his bitch, just don’t panic when they mail the oxygen bill to you, Obamessiah would approve it, you know, the African-American Christian guy running for President and whose Pastor of years spews racial hatred.
Pachamama is a goddess, Correa is catering to the American indians because they kind of ousted the last two Presidents. Correa is Catholic, educated in a Catholic school, graduated from a Catholic university (Universidad Católica de Guayaquil), who was in good terms with the Church until the bishops spoke against the ambiguous wording of the new Ecuadorian Constitution regarding abortion and gay marriage (genre identity is mentioned quite a few times).
I have to admit Correa is good at kindling the ire of the weak minded, channeling it against his perceived enemies (hint: anyone who disagrees with him). These days the archbishop of the Guayaquil has received death treats and has been called “maricón” (faggot) by the socialist masses, Correa and his ilk are stirring class hatred. He also illegally dismissed the Congress and owns the Courts i.e. he’s the sole ruler of this banana republic.
In despite of what Rudd-O stated, the opposition to the government of Rafael Correa makes a minority. Most Ecuadorians have been deluded into thinking the socialist government is going to provide for each and all of us from cradle to grave; Correa’s Constitution is a letter to Santa, that’s why it’s expected to be easily approved, and because most Ecuadorians love charismatic and cocky demagogues too.
About the Quechuas: The Incas raided, conquered, enslaved and Quechuanized the indigenous people of Western South America before the Spanish toppled their Empire. Get a clue Rudd-O et al: The Incas were imperialists, not just the “victims of the Spanish rapacity”. Instead of giving the Indians smallpoxed blankets like the Yanks did, the Spanish Catholic missionaries helped the natives to keep their language, that’s why there are about 14 million Quechua-speakers in South America and have the political muscle to set and remove Presidents.
Correa’s Constitution provides the indigenous peoples with safeguards to practice their own laws and customs, guess they’ll shrink heads and sacrifice children unabashedly; I mean, if the liberal and enlightened Eurocrats want to give in to sharia courts prescribing honor-killing for suspected adulteresses, why can’t native Americans enforce their own set of neolithic laws? The Constitution will also make compulsory the teaching of Quechua.
To the guy speaking of oil and al-Qaeda: Ecuador may drill and export oil but cannot meet the internal demand of gasoline and diesel therefore those commodities are imported from elsewhere and Venezuela, the turf of petty dictator Hugo Chavez who is friends with top democrat Raul Castro and the champion of women’s rights and nuke-the-world-to-speedup-the-Mahdi’s-return Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Y’know, Hugo Chavez calls Correa “my boy”, they’re that close. Latin America is being overrun by the kind of Marxism that seeks to make Cuba a base for Russian Tu-95 bombers and helps Islam to set a foothold in the Western World.
And yes, I’m an atheist.
@asdf #80
Great commentary. I’d only object to your calling the likes of Correa and Chávez “Marxists”. For what it’s worth, Marx himself would have called them “Bonapartists”, meaning populist dictators disguised as progressive leaders. There is maybe a slight difference: Some of their initiatives are in fact pushed forward by popular movements demanding better life quality and equal rights. But at the same time, the longer they stay in power, the deeper they get to infiltrate the state and the military with their cronies and relatives – reminding me of a certain corrupt US president who made even Nixon look good.
I don’t get my head around the fact that so many buy into the superficial green & socialist rhetoric professed by these heirs of Perón. As much as social changes have to happen in South America & elsewhere, it is wishful thinking to assume that a Pachamama-invoking constitution and an authoritarian leader like Mr Correa can do the job. Oh, by the way: One of the most progressive constitutions ever written was the Soviet Union’s. You get to wonder how the gulags were possible at all, and yet…
The number of morons that insist in calling democratically elected leaders with no blood in their hands dictators is truly amazing.