Rights of Nature, but not natural rights ?

There’s an interesting article by Anna Grear in Aeon, criticising the idea that Nature should have human-style rights, and linking to the website of the Centre for Humans and Nature, which has lots more interesting discussion.

John Quiggan.

I’ve recently written a contribution to a forthcoming book by Tim Hollo, in which I take the opposite view. My central point is that corporations are routinely treated as persons for legal purposes, and that the effect is frequently harmful to Nature. There is in my view, no reason in principle, not to give legal standing to representatives of Nature, similar to that given to the representatives of social constructions like corporations. A lengthy extract over the fold.

If property rights are social constructions, what implications can we draw in relation to rights for Nature. On the one hand, we can rule out essentialist objections, along the lines that the concept of property rights cannot encompass rights for Nature. 

There are, of course, practical issues that must be resolved. Neither Nature in general, nor particular species and ecosystems have the kind of agency required to exercise and defend property rights. Rather these property rights must be exercised by humans, bound by obligations to act in line with the interests of Nature, and these interests must also be defined by humans. There is nothing particularly unusual here. Our current system assigns property rights to infants, who are in exactly the same position.

Read the story by John Quiggin - “Rights of Nature, but not natural rights ?”

Understanding civil disobedience - maybe that's all that is left

Civil disobedience is misunderstood by many, but is frequently employed by some in a civil society that abides by the rule of law, and it is within that same society they aim to challenge and hopefully change a law with which they disagree.

This meaning of civil disobedience should be considered when you see someone risking prosecution and disfavour:

Civil disobedience is the deliberate peaceful violation of a law. It draws its authority from a moral conflict within the individual between the laws of the country and the laws of conscience. It is a sacrifice made by individuals or groups of people who have the courage to risk prosecution and disfavour.

And that is about all there is left for those of us uncomfortable about how our governments are not responding to the calamity that is climate change.

Taking the 'EasyMile' electric, driverless bus

Anything new, or different, is frequently (always) controversial.

The EasyMile electric, driverless bus at Mooloolaba.

And the Easymile’s EZ10 driverless shuttle fits that criteria perfectly.

The driverless electric vehicle, that can carry up to 12 people, was demonstrated in Mooloolaba over three days giving locals a ride up and down The Esplanade and experience being in a vehicle not only without a driver, but even without a steering wheel.

Australians are known as early adopters of new technology and so the arrival of something new in terms of personal transport created considerable interest.

The reaction, however, was mixed from those loud in the praise for this revolutionary bus to those equally noisy in their criticism of what they saw as just another slow moving obstruction on our roadways.

People accustomed to zooming about Mooloolaba at 60km/h, and sometimes faster, saw the demonstration bus, that travelled at less than 10km/h, as dreadfully slow and of no obvious benefit to the movement of people.

Sadly, those who doubted the fundamental idea of electric driverless vehicles viewed this revolution in people movement through the dated prism of the fossil-fuel powered traditional car and had no appreciation of the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and the fact that the bus is just the first step, and a small one at that,  in a significant change to people movement.

Privately owned traditional vehicles kill thousands of people every year and leave many with health issues that leave society with huge medical costs, and depend entirely on an energy-rich publicly funded infrastructure - it illustrates conclusively the idea of privatising profits at public expense.

The driverless bus, at least the model demonstrated, is just the first step in disrupting that strategy.

The EasyMile electric, driverless bus is equipped with
wheelchair access facilities, but sadly the ramp had
been damaged in transit and so wasn't working at
Mooloolaba.

Those critical of the demonstration bus must remember that the early internal combustion engined cars need to be proceeded by a fellow waving a red flag warning others that this newfangled “thing” was following.

The driverless bus, that is neither coming nor going, is air-conditioned, is quiet and wheelchair ready, although as it had been damaged in transit, the electric ramp on the Mooloolaba bus was not working.

The company behind the bus, EasyMile, sees the bus ideal for use at train stations, airports, city centres, theme parks and cultural sites, industrial sites, retirement villages and educational campuses.

In the case of Mooloolaba, EasyMile had previously plotted the short course used over the three days, but along with that is uses lasers, odometry, GPS technology and so is able to avoid obstacles and brake if necessary.

EasyMile is headquartered in France and was set up in 2014.