Ecocide

[Clivedurdle]

(Umm, this is actually a political subject as it is about a very significant change to international law!)

Ecocide law is a law for life

Ecocide law is known as a ‘law for life’ – a law that puts people and planet first, a law that says ‘enough, no more mass damage and destruction.’ When we do that, humanity places the health and well-being of all beings both now and in the future at the forefront of our decision-making. It is a law that affirms humanity’s right to life, nature’s right to life and future generations right to life.

Most of all, Ecocide law is a law for peace.

A law of Ecocide is required. This we know because it no longer works to destroy our habitat. A law of Ecocide can be put in place at the very top, as an international crime, over and above all other laws – to prevent mass damage, destruction to or loss of ecosystems – which means amending the Rome Statute. All that is required is for it to be tabled. It can be done, and there is a Review Conference due soon. All nations have been sent a Concept Paper and this website sets out in the public domain the proposal that will change the course of history – should we choose. Polly Higgins, legal expert on the law of Ecocide and author of Eradicating Ecocide and Earth is our Business, calls Ecocide “the missing crime of our time.”

http://eradicatingecocide.com

 

[Underseer]

While I agree that we need a radical change in our relationship with the environment... "ecocide"? Really?

 

[arkirk]

(Umm, this is actually a political subject as it is about a very significant change to international law!)



http://eradicatingecocide.com

The problem with massive legislation against ecocide is that our entire society and way of life is bound to principles that seem to dictate ecocide. There is the concept of ownership, where the owner says, "I own this and can do with it whatever I want. Further, ecocide is ongoing and automatic. How do you get to work? Drive your car? Well just maybe soon it may be a boat!

 

[Clivedurdle]

And maybe our entire world is going in a dangerous direction because we are destroying the commons? Garrett Harding was mistaken, we have always known how to manage commons, problems arise when people take bits of them and pretend they belong to themselves. One of the interesting privatisations are ideas like "my body". Isn't that a fiction?

 

[arkirk]

Last night on TV, I heard a financial advisor tell us that the nations of the world are fighting over who gets to "control" the deep sea and land based commons. Actually a "common" is a place where you can go for free. Our environment is not a bunch of "commons." It is not a FREE WAREHOUSE OF ENERGY to anybody but the suicidal. Oh well, they must all be Christians or something like them. They'll get their reward in heaven and the rest of us get to languish here on this despoiled globe till we give up and die...probably headed to hell at that point...why bother dying when the earth will be somewhat hell like by then.

 

[Angry Floof]

The problem with massive legislation against ecocide is that our entire society and way of life is bound to principles that seem to dictate ecocide.

I agree with this. I don't think there's a large number of people who want to destroy ecosystems. It's that the human-created systems we live in reinforce consumption, consumption, consumption, along with a flippant attitude toward waste, tunnel vision focused on personal wealth and image, apathy toward nature and the other billions living on this earth, and immediate gratification.

Ask anyone if they care about the earth's ecosystems and they will invariably say "yes." But ask them how their own everyday habits, choices, and beliefs conflict with this concern and they likely will not have a clue.

 

[Zeluvia]

Clive, I think you need to carve it in stone and have the letters filled with Bronze. That way, what ever few survivors there are can find it in 20,000 years and maybe start over with that in mind.

 

[arkirk]

The real problem is raising ecological consciousness. It's funny, I heard this being discussed 40 years ago and here we are now with the only thread on this morals forum! Clivedurdle pointed out that maybe it is a "political problem." I suspect all moral issues are political issues. It seems that our serious political problems are all also matters of people doing things without regard for the consequences. When this disregard is the defining character of any action, it probably is immoral...well at least to me.

People tend to separate moral issues and it can be an excuse for not acting. This goes to the heart of the problem with morality. A moral statement is one that can neither be proven nor disproven. So, when you make a statement and base its truth on little more than one's preference, you are on shaky ground indeed...or are you?

Where do we find the foundation that supports our assertions? Years ago I ran a public forum and it was called Fair Share Principles. We explored environmental issues and it seemed the group never really had a problem coming to a consensus on what was right. Environmental issues have consequences that perhaps are NOT SO MYSTERIOUS OR HARD TO UNDERSTAND. Outcomes or consequences, whatever you want to call them can be considered by the rational mind. They are real and often predictable. As with all things, it is possible to be mistaken, but chemistry and physics give us a leg up on understanding the environment and our guesses as to what will transpire on an earthly scale are becoming ever more accurate.

It is in all our interests that we get our environmental understanding right. That is where one must resort to some sort of requirement that the speakers in the debate be honest. Unfortunately this is not the case in our most serious environmental debates today. We have political factions that try to hide facts from us. They try to hide what they are doing to the world and us. This happens because they are seeking profits from unsustainable industries our understanding of the environmental consequences would lead us to avoid on a survival basis.

In that respect, environmental morality is perhaps not so ethereal as the blue churchy stuff we hear from the religious.

 

[Angry Floof]

People tend to make choices within a framework of human-created systems, which reflect little to none of the reality of ecological systems.

Here's someone who articulates this better than I ever could: http://youtu.be/BAPwEVM-yXY

 

[The Helmetmaker]

And maybe our entire world is going in a dangerous direction because we are destroying the commons? Garrett Harding was mistaken, we have always known how to manage commons, problems arise when people take bits of them and pretend they belong to themselves. One of the interesting privatisations are ideas like "my body". Isn't that a fiction?

But no problem when other people take all of them and pretend they belong to themselves, and that they somehow arrogate to themselves the rights of ownership even though they have none? To answer your question "Isn't that a fiction"? - no, it's a fact. A moral and legal fact. Ownership is a moral and legal concept based on use. Or do you also advocate slavery, as your last two sentences imply?

 

[arkirk]

And maybe our entire world is going in a dangerous direction because we are destroying the commons? Garrett Harding was mistaken, we have always known how to manage commons, problems arise when people take bits of them and pretend they belong to themselves. One of the interesting privatisations are ideas like "my body". Isn't that a fiction?

But no problem when other people take all of them and pretend they belong to themselves, and that they somehow arrogate to themselves the rights of ownership even though they have none? To answer your question "Isn't that a fiction"? - no, it's a fact. A moral and legal fact. Ownership is a moral and legal concept based on use. Or do you also advocate slavery, as your last two sentences imply?

Come on, Helmetmaker, you are trying to make a case for only ownership conferring rights. You apparently can only understand things in terms of ownership, in a world where membership in society should be the basis of rights and participation. They call that kind of rights human rights. We really need to conclude this period of history ruled by brutal privatizers and environmental despoilers. You may "own" yourself yet have a deep reservoir of social responsibilities. Become careless and drive drunk and you find yourself "owning yourself" in a prison cell. Human rights must devolve from social responsibility, not titles, and definitely not ownership. You really should consider that we as a society have mutual responsibilities that super-cede personal rights.

 

[Bullmoose Too]

While I agree that we need a radical change in our relationship with the environment... "ecocide"? Really?

It sounds like fearmongering if you ask me.