“Tree rights” is a subset of the overarching “nature rights” movement, which also includes “river rights,” “ocean rights,” and even “rights for the moon.”
Read More ›
The study has arrived on the heels of Time Magazine’s decision to elect a number of AI company CEOs as its annual “Person of the Year.”
Read More ›
Burrows proposes an approach he calls “just preservation,” which would treat wild animals as the moral and legal equals of humans.
Read More ›
This bill vividly illustrates the authoritarian impulses of the “nature rights” movement specifically and its embrace of toxic anti-humanism generally.
Read More ›
Like so much of contemporary “nature rights” advocacy, this is nonsense. A forest does not have agency and can’t author anything. It is incapable of creative acts.
Read More ›
What “reciprocal duties” do waterways have toward us? Rivers are not alive. Waters are not our “living relatives.” They are geological features.
Read More ›
Nothing great is at stake in what happened to Kimmel. In the domination of science by ideology, by the myth of “settled science,” the stakes couldn’t be more profound.
Read More ›
The question of whether nature should own stock is ridiculous on its face. But that doesn’t stop environmental radicals from furthering that cause. Indeed, at least one privately held company has put “nature” on its board of directors. Now, a leading New Zealand law firm Parry Field — which represents nonprofit organizations — has published a paper urging that “nature” become an owner of companies. The author, one of the partners, named Steven Moe, goes wrong right off the bat. From “Nature as a Shareholder“: When speaking, I often hold up an apple and ask what the potential is — maybe an apple pie, sliced into a salad, or perhaps some apple cider? No — the true potential are the seeds inside which Read More ›
Most nature rights laws permit anyone who believes that “nature’s rights” are being violated to sue on nature’s behalf, creating serious lawfare possibilities.
Read More ›
Hopefully, the growing hubris of bioethicists who think they can tackle the world’s most intractable problems — even war — will push them into irrelevance.
Read More ›
The vaunted international community is going all-in on radical environmentalism that, if enacted widely, would gut human prosperity.
Read More ›
Most people still don’t take “nature rights” seriously because it is clearly irrational. But that’s a huge mistake. Their cause is accelerating.
Read More ›
That makes sense if we recall that fish can’t relay a history or write things down so they were depending on older fish to know the way.
Read More ›“Nature rights” are unnecessary for proper environmental protection. The point is to throttle human activities.
Read More ›
Seattle’s streets pulse with data. But walk those same streets and it becomes clear: the life has drained out of the space between the data points.
Read More ›
This bill illustrates the expansive and anti-human goals of the nature-rights movement, which is gaining steam every day.
Read More ›
Few people who are not already fixated on global warming will care what doctors may think about it; most would rather their doctors stick to medicine.
Read More ›
much of the advocacy is about imposing ideology on what should be scientific practices
Read More ›
Nature rights is an ideological statement demoting mankind into just another animal in the forest.
Read More ›
Lawfare and the resulting usurpation of public policy by courts allows the elites to decide environmental policies by diktat.
Read More ›