Whanganui is a person too

[Auxin]

If Corporations Are People, Then Why Not Rivers?

In 1982, filmmaker Godfrey Reggio released a film called KOYAANISQATSI. The title is the Hopi word for ‘life out of balance,” and it deals with the relationship between man and nature. From Reggio’s perspective, “There seems to be no ability to see beyond, to see that we have encased ourselves in an artificial environment that has remarkably replaced the original, nature itself. We do not live with nature any longer; we live above it, off of it, as it were.”

I was reminded of this film when I read the news item about the government of New Zealand granting legal personhood to the Whanganui River.

The Whanganui, New Zealand’s third longest river, was determined, in a landmark decision, to be a person, “in the same way a company is, which will give it rights and interests.” This should put to rest a longstanding dispute between the indigenous Maori iwi (group) of the Whanganui and the government.

The settlement establishes the river as a protected entity that both the government and the iwi will oversee.

“Today’s agreement recognizes the status of the river as Te Awa Tupua (an integrated, living whole) and the inextricable relationship of iwi with the river,” said Christopher Finlayson, New Zealand’s Minister for Treaty for Waitangi Negotiations. Waitangi is the historical treaty, signed in 1840, that defined the relationship between the newly formed government and the Maori people.

The new agreement means that, in essence, when it comes to the law, the river will be treated as a person. There is another side to the agreement as well.

“Whanganui Iwi also recognize the value others place on the river and wanted to ensure that all stakeholders and the river community as a whole are actively engaged in developing the long-term future of the river and ensuring its well-being.”

This might seem to us to be at some crazy extreme end of the spectrum that runs between man and nature. But, if it is, then the other extreme would have to be the world that we live in, the world where a corporation, which is, in fact, really nothing more than an idea, is also considered a person.

As David Suzuki says in Tom Shadyac’s excellent film, I Am (which can be seen in its entirety here), “If you read the Wall Street Journal, they treat the market and the economy as if they were some thing. Wait a minute; the market is not some natural force of nature. We created the damn thing. And I believe that part of our problem now is the separation of humanity from the natural world, and the sense that the economy is the most important thing in our lives.”

Balance. This is all about balance. Calling a river a person is certainly no more crazy than calling a corporation one. Native Americans have a word for a type of mental illness called Wetiko, named after a cannibalistic mythical creature that “takes and consumes without giving anything back, continually draining and impoverishing the planet of resources.”

How does that compare with the Wall Street banks, for example, that, according to David Korten in June 2009, had outstanding, over-the-counter derivatives, a form of phantom wealth, in an amount equal to ten times the Gross World Product. Which one is scarier?

New Zealand’s legal action was not a first. Back in 2008, the government of Ecuador passed a law giving rights of personhood to tropical forests, islands, rivers and air. According to the law, “Natural communities and ecosystems possess the unalienable right to exist, flourish and evolve within Ecuador. Those rights shall be self-executing, and it shall be the duty and right of all Ecuadorian governments, communities, and individuals to enforce those rights.” That inalienable part sounds familiar.

Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. If corporations are people, then certainly those things that in the long run will be far more important to all of our survival should, at least, be considered their equal.

Perhaps it all comes down to something Henry David Thoreau once said. “The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it.”

[Link][image Credit]

A good development, perhaps more people are beginning to value nature as much as money.

[Sallubrious]

“There seems to be no ability to see beyond, to see that we have encased ourselves in an artificial environment that has remarkably replaced the original, nature itself. We do not live with nature any longer; we live above it, off of it, as it were.”

I like that quote ^

I've offended a few people that live in high rise apartments before by calling them extra terrestrials. Some people spend their whole day and never once come in contact with the natural earth, just buildings and concrete.

Everything natural is abhorrent and despised by many "extra terrestrials"

They really let you know how despicable is to touch "dirt" - the same dirt that gives us all life.

It's good to see some positive action to protect some of the natural world before the corporate giants devour it all.

I could go off on a tangent here about the parallels between the corporate mentality and the Borg from Star Trek.

[WoodDragon]

And then there are the Bolivians, who have shown themselves to have a better understanding of how the world really works than does the Western world. Apparently Ecuador followed the example, but sadly it does not seem to stop corporations from having their way.

[whitewind]

I can't imagine the Australian government being so progressive. They are so corporate it's not funny.

Sally, that reminds me of the guy who was claiming that homosexuality should be banned because it "wasn't natural".

"Then why are you riding in a big metal box with me then?" I asked. "That's pretty fucking unnatural".

He still didn't get it.

[qualia]

"Then why are you riding in a big metal box with me then?" I asked. "That's pretty fucking unnatural".

slight tangent i 'spose. but it strikes me as odd when people look at human tool use as unnatural. cars are simply tools. as is everything else we construct which allows us to do things (computers etc.). do you argue a chimp using a rock to split a nut is unnatural? or gorillas using long reeds to get at ants is unnatural? or orangutans building leaf beds in the trees? the only difference is the level of complexity in all the inventions. i guess it comes back to the idea that humans are apart, or above nature. we're not, just the complexity of our inventions are unique, as is the selfishness to which we employ them.

Edited September 22, 2012 by qualia

[qualia]

or to raise another question, when does life become "unnatural"?

[whitewind]

No, but he couldn't explain what he meant by "unnatural", especially in regards to homosexuality. Which means, his argument was false and based on repetition of something he didn't fully understand. We agreed, eventually, that unnatural was something extremely difficult to define, but he still used it as an argument for wanting homosexuality banned.

[qualia]

"ban homosexuality",

oh my

[whitewind]

I don't know, Qualia. I don't know.

[nabraxas]

"natural" is one ov those words which becomes meaningless pretty quickly:

it's natural to wear clothes, it's natural to be naked.

but as far as homosexuality goes:

homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

that fact IMHO means that homosexuality can be thought ov as natural.

[whitewind]

Unfortunately bestiality is also behaviour seen in the natural world. Well, actually in a man-made environment, probably wouldn't happen in nature so much. I saw a male duck mount a chicken, then another male duck climb on top of the rutting pair, and a goose came along and guarded the trio while the unwholesome deed was played out. Also, plants regularly use foul go-betweens like flies and other carrion loving insects in order to have sexual relations with a distant partner, and there is the well known story of the duck who repeatedly rutted with the dead body of another duck. Something may be "natural" but it might not be normal. But just because it's not normal, doesn't mean that it's unwholesome.

Anyway, we are going well off topic, and it's my fault. I want to start up a group of people who are willing to make a website and put forward the argument that Australia's own Murray River should be given the same rights as a corporation. Anyone with me?

[nabraxas]

Something may be "natural" but it might not be normal

"normal" seems just as meaningless as "natural".

it's normal to wear clothes; it's normal to be naked.

& "unwholesome" also seems more user defined than definitive.

Murray River should be given the same rights as a corporation. Anyone with me?

you've got my vote.

Edited September 24, 2012 by nabraxas

[Distracted]

Homosexual necrophilia is the most natural form of sex one can have.

In the summer of 1995, Kees Moeliker, a dutch researcher, was sitting behind his desk in the glass building of the Rotterdam Natural museum. Suddenly he was alerted by an unusual loud bang coming from the direction of the window. Outside the building, a male mallard (the common wild duck) was found dead, laying on its belly in the sand.

Next to the dead duck, another male mallard was present that forcibly picked the dead duck’s head for a few minutes after which it mounted the corpse and began forcefuly copulating with it. The male mallard raped the corpse almost continuously for 75 minutes(!), including two short breaks, before the author disturbed the cruel scene and secured the dead duck.

http://mudfooted.com...ck-necrophilia/

I hope they get that river for murder for all the people that drowned.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Distracted

[WoodDragon]

Whitewind, those drakes you mentioned were also rapists.

Don't believe anyone who tells you that humans males are the only species that rapes. Many animals do, and drakes are notorious for it. I once watched five black duck drakes pile on top of a swimming female, and they probably would have drowned her had I not stepped out of the building and on to the jetty to scare the males off.

[qualia]

i think that's consensual.