That sure helps. Many already do feel, Original Peoples have always felt as such, many are out of touch so "need to feel..." and then some e.g. the corporate miners whether they feel or not need to be restrained somehow hence the highlighting of legal Rights of Nature.
But.... 'rights of nature' as a legal concept runs into the fact that the state — the dominator — is in charge of deciding what those 'rights' are.... just as with all 'rights' for that matter... so this is not different: human rights and nature rights are in the same boat.... the real battle terrain is, as I said in my Great Lakes substack piece {https://peterderrico.substack.com/p/great-lakes-and-state-waters-bill}, ontological: for humans it means coming to terms with personal human sovereignty ... which is of necessity within sovereign 'nature' .... The story from JoDe's grandfather (also in Great Lakes post) states the truth of the situation: Nature: “To follow… not to take care of”.
thx, Peter... and i'll check out that post again, and thanks for the legal angle insights! Also to add, i think follow and care can intertwine. Follow and listen, etc. is certainly overlooked with all the efforts to DO something, yet also i think the encouragement to care for in some way is an aspect of reciprocity with regard to the natural world, yet simply "to take care of" sounds like humans thinking (foolishly) they know best.
Yes. Sigh. We need to feel the Earth as a living being, and her body as sacred.
That sure helps. Many already do feel, Original Peoples have always felt as such, many are out of touch so "need to feel..." and then some e.g. the corporate miners whether they feel or not need to be restrained somehow hence the highlighting of legal Rights of Nature.
I'm glad you are grappling with this...
But.... 'rights of nature' as a legal concept runs into the fact that the state — the dominator — is in charge of deciding what those 'rights' are.... just as with all 'rights' for that matter... so this is not different: human rights and nature rights are in the same boat.... the real battle terrain is, as I said in my Great Lakes substack piece {https://peterderrico.substack.com/p/great-lakes-and-state-waters-bill}, ontological: for humans it means coming to terms with personal human sovereignty ... which is of necessity within sovereign 'nature' .... The story from JoDe's grandfather (also in Great Lakes post) states the truth of the situation: Nature: “To follow… not to take care of”.
thx, Peter... and i'll check out that post again, and thanks for the legal angle insights! Also to add, i think follow and care can intertwine. Follow and listen, etc. is certainly overlooked with all the efforts to DO something, yet also i think the encouragement to care for in some way is an aspect of reciprocity with regard to the natural world, yet simply "to take care of" sounds like humans thinking (foolishly) they know best.