Planets have human rights (in the Imperium)?

Dave Chase

Mongoose
UN document would give 'Mother Earth' same rights as humans

http://www.canada.com/technology/document+would+give+Mother+Earth+same+rights+humans/4597840/story.html

So, I wonder if this type of situation would/could exist in the OTU.

Dave Chase
 
The initiative is no real surprise, "Mother Earth" is considered a living be-
ing in most native South American cultures, and with these cultures be-
coming more politically powerful than the culture of the Spanish conque-
rors, the return of the concept of "Mother Earth" was very likely.

Most other cultures of our planet do not have an equally strong concept of
Earth as a living being with rights which have to be protected, and the Eu-
ropean and non-native North American cultures still tend to see the planet
as dead material which is free to be exploited.

However, there is also a scientific concept of Earth as a living being, the
Gaia Hypothesis, which has gained quite a lot of influence in "green" mo-
vements. If it should become a mainstream concept, and a majority of
Earth's citizens would begin to see Earth as a living being, there would of
course also have to be rights of that being.

And if a concept similar to the Gaia Hypothesis would be the mainstream
thought in any interstellar community, its citizens would also have to for-
mulate the set of rights any living creature is entitled to.
 
DFW said:
Only if IQs continue to decline...
Or to improve, since the protection of the ecology of any inhabited planet
is essential for the survival of its inhabitants, and the science of ecology
is moving in the direction of seeing the entire biosphere of Earth as one
complex organism made of a network of interrelated parts. And whether
one formulates the necessary laws as laws to protect the biosphere or as
protected rights of the planet's biosphere makes no difference at all - ex-
cept for the people whose religion states that Earth is a living being, and
I would very much hesitate to accuse them of having a low IQ because
of their religion.
 
rust said:
Or to improve, since the protection of the ecology of any inhabited planet is essential for the survival of its inhabitants

Naw, giving rights to rocks has nothing to do with being smart about resources.
 
DFW said:
Naw, giving rights to rocks has nothing to do with being smart about resources.
This is neither the intent nor the content of the proposal. The core is
obviously not about rocks:
"Mother Earth has the right to exist, to persist and to continue the vital
cycles, structures, functions and processes that sustain all human beings."
Reducing this to "rights to rocks" is like reducing human rights to rights
for bones and tissue.
 
rust said:
Reducing this to "rights to rocks" is like reducing human rights to rights
for bones and tissue.


With rights come responsibilities. So, can Japan file against Gaia? Let's see what the penalty would be for the murder of 10k
:lol:

It there ever was case to be made for everyone needing to thoroughly understand Reductio ad absurdum, this would be it.
 
DFW said:
With rights come responsibilities.
The animals in a national park are protected by law, they have the right
not to be killed without a specific reason. Does this mean that the bisons
in the Yellowstone Park have any responsibilities ?

If I torture my cat, I will be fined, because the cat has a right not to be
tortured. Does this mean that my cat has any responsibilities, or that one
could sue my cat for anything it does ?

In short, since all nations recognize animal rights in their legal system,
but none demands animal responsibilities, the concept of "with rights
come responsibilities" is obviously wrong.
 
The danger is in anthropomorphising the planetary ecosystem, because this gives ammunition to climate-change deniers decrying environmental science as "hocus-pocus".

There are already many cases of the Earth having rights which take precedence over those given to humans, for example, we are prohibited from dumping all kinds of toxic wastes in the sea even though the advantages outweigh the disadvantages as far as humans are concerned. Thus current generations of humans are deprived at the expense of the planet.

I think "planetary rights" are a possibility in any starfaring society, because if they don't learn the lesson they'll probably wipe themselves out before they get that far. However, once you no longer have to rely on the cradle of mankind for survival, you might be less concerned about the long-term effects of your actions. You can always move to another planet.
 
rust said:
The animals in a national park are protected by law, they have the right not to be killed without a specific reason. Does this mean that the bisons in the Yellowstone Park have any responsibilities ?
Protection from being on Federal Lands does not equal "having rights", it equals "being protected".
 
Semantics. Let's put it this way. Animal rights legislation means that animals have rights. Rights are a legal instrument and they do not hinge on the fulfillment of responsibilities. "Rights come with responsibilities" is a colloquialism, not a legal fact.

Unless you make it a fact IYTU.
 
By the way, Bolivia's proposal is a mild example of what "alien" means.
It has been worded in a language based upon a culture and mentality
which seems rather strange to us, and which will probably prevent that
it wins much support outside of South America. However, had it been
worded in terms more in tune with our mindset, for example as a Bio-
diversity Protection Charter or a Natural Resources Protection Charter
instead of Rights for Mother Earth, it would be much more palatable for
many people of other cultures - although the proposed content would be
exactly the same.
 
Somebody said:
In my opinion we should start with treating animals like humans.
You were obviously born a few centuries too late, there have been court
cases of the kind you mentioned during the Middle Ages, for example a
famous case were a pig was sentenced to death for an attack on a human,
and a case were a monkey was accused of indecency (I do not remember
the sentence he got). :wink:

However, most of the time our culture preferred to follow the opposite
idea, and treated humans like animals.
 
Please, not to much RL life politics. :)

I just wanted to see if people thought that in a galaxy wide, multiply alien and empire setting if some group might actually declare and stand behind a planet having or equaling the same rights as given a human/alien citizen.

Dave Chase
 
Dave Chase said:
I just wanted to see if people thought that in a galaxy wide, multiply alien and empire setting if some group might actually declare and stand behind a planet having or equaling the same rights as given a human/alien citizen.
Since in science fiction a planet can more or less be an intelligent being,
too (see Solaris), I have no doubt that this could be possible.
 
Hmm. I'd think there'd be some tension on the subject. In general the Imperium rules the space between planets so that would give planetary leaders the latitude to make whatever ruling they choose.

That said, within the Imperium itself you'd probably have competing interests. Corporate groups after planetary resources would want to discount this kind of philosophy. For the most part they do seem pretty cutthroat and ruthless in the Traveller setting.

On the other hand, you seem to have a sense of stewardship on the part of organizations like the Scouts and for every noble primarily motivated by short term profits, via corporate connections, there may well be one operating under noblesse oblige and backing interdictions, in some cases, and other less drastic controls with an eye to long term resource management, sustainability or other economic/political considerations.

The Vilani culturally are probably most far sighted and bound up in the concepts of noble action. They've had plenty of time to see the consequences of mismanaged ecologies. The Solomani, as a younger and more aggressive culture, likely are more driven by profit motives. The current Imperium is a blend of these (and others besides).

I'm hardly an expert though! This is just my guess at first pass.

So overall, no, I don't think the Imperium as a whole could make or even legally enforce any kind of Gaia initiative across all member planets. There'd also be political, cultural and regional tensions about the ideology behind such a move. Still, incentives and education could be offered to member worlds to improve sustainability and biodiversity and might well be through the Scout service and individuals (Dilettantes?) pursuing such goals privately or in the political realm.
 
Vile said:
"Rights come with responsibilities" is a colloquialism, not a legal fact.

Correct. It isn't a legal fact, just logical. Logic and the law are not the same thing.
 
Dave Chase said:
Please, not to much RL life politics. :)

I just wanted to see if people thought that in a galaxy wide, multiply alien and empire setting if some group might actually declare and stand behind a planet having or equaling the same rights as given a human/alien citizen.

Dave Chase
To answer this question: No, only tree-hugging post flooding (read:up on a soapbox) liberals maintain this viewpoint.

The intelligent sentient PEOPLE of the galaxy have been kind enough to make sanitariums to hold all of the tree-huggers away from society for everyone's safety *grin*
 
GamerDude said:
To answer this question: No, only tree-hugging post flooding (read:up on a soapbox) liberals maintain this viewpoint.

The intelligent sentient PEOPLE of the galaxy have been kind enough to make sanitariums to hold all of the tree-huggers away from society for everyone's safety *grin*

Agreed - it would take the same sort of lunacy that would grant a [mega]corporation the same rights and privileges as an individual citizen under the law. *grin*

Planets (barring some sort of "Pandora" type planet-wide hive mind) do not seem to be self-aware individuals. The idea of allowing some special-interest guardian group to "speak" for the planet's "needs" as they see them (what the UN's proposal actually says) really just gives geo-political power to a previously country-free activist group.

In that light, yeah, I can easily see one of the "Religious Dictatorship" government planets having a "Gaia First" religion that controls some or all activity on a planet. Expect very strict controls on skimming, landing and probably even allowable off-planet goods. "You fiend! You skimmed water from the sacred lake of the weeping mother!"

Besides, there are already Traveller religions that worship Suns or Jump Space, aren't there? A planet is not a big stretch from those.
 
Somebody said:
In the OTU setting (The only Traveller setting I care about):

The Solomanie won't since the planet is not a Solomanie

The Imperials will IF they can make money with it. If they can make more money with it having no rights (i.e Cymbeline chips) they won't

The KKree likely will not since something on that planet likely is a carnivore/omnivore

The Hivers might. If they can use it to screw around with everybody elses head/destiny/life

The Aslan won't. It's difficult to own a planet with "Aslan rights" and land is everything!

The Vagr won't. That would prevent them from marking their territory the old fashioned way

The Darrians will think about it and then blow it up by accident while testing a <whatever> Trigger

The Zhos will IF the planet has PSI powers. Otherwise it will become a Prole, Proles have no rights

Alright, and cool. Thanks :)

Dave Chase
 
Back
Top