It matters what we believe.
As above, so below. As within, so without.
Bolivia is set to enact a law recognizing that Nature has inherent rights. From an article in the Guardian, these include “the right to life and to exist; the right to continue vital cycles and processes free from human alteration; the right to pure water and clean air; the right to balance; the right not to be polluted; and the right to not have cellular structure modified or genetically altered.”
If such a law seems unimaginable in the United States, you are literally correct. It cannot be imagined because it does not fit into the majority worldviews in this country.
The majority religious worldview teaches that the Earth was created by a supreme being who then gave humans “dominion” over it. This worldview is based on a hierarchy of ownership: all rights belong to the owner, who can do with the owned as he pleases. One of the few things I remember from a business law class in graduate school was the principle that “the value of a thing is what it will bring in an open market” – no thing, not even the Earth itself, has value of its own, only what value is derived from its usefulness or desirability to humans.
Even our Christian friends who support “creation care” (and make no mistake, they are our friends) do so from this hierarchical worldview: they believe caring for the Earth is important because it is God’s creation, not because the Earth has rights of its own.
The majority secular worldview in this country claims the autonomy of the individual human is the greatest good. This new law demands that the rights of humans be balanced against the rights of the Earth. Some will see this as an infringement on their autonomy, and they will frame their arguments as a human battle – those who want to protect the Earth vs. those who want to exploit the Earth. Or worse, as a battle between “oppression” and “freedom.” They will never consider that the Earth has rights which should also be valued and respected.
It matters what we believe.
As above, so below. As within, so without.
This law fits well within an indigenous worldview, and it is no coincidence that Bolivia’s Evo Morales is South America’s first indigenous president. Despite our tendency to romanticize them, indigenous cultures are not perfect. But people who live close to the land understand that the Earth is alive and that it must be respected. Some of that respect comes from gratitude, from the “blessings” (as this law describes natural resources) the Earth provides. Some of it comes from observing the power of the Earth – volcanoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, wild animals. When you understand that you aren’t the most powerful thing in the universe, you start to understand that the Earth should be respected and valued, and that it has rights of its own.
This law also fits well within a Pagan worldview. The Charge of the Goddess speaks of “I, who am the beauty of the green Earth and the white Moon among the Stars and the mysteries of the Waters” – many Pagans see the Earth as the body of the Goddess. Others acknowledge nature spirits and the Spirits of Nature. Still others worship Gaia or other goddesses specifically associated with the Earth. The common thread through all these beliefs and practices is the idea that the Earth is divine and sacred. And if the Earth is divine and sacred, then it has inherent value and rights.
Perhaps most importantly, this law fits well within a scientific worldview. Not a materialistic worldview, but a scientific worldview based on facts and observations of things as they really are. Science has shown that we weren’t placed on the Earth, we grew out of the Earth. We share the vast majority of our DNA with chimpanzees and bonobos, large amounts with other primates, much with other animals, and some with insects and plants. We may be the most intelligent and most industrious creatures in this world (whether we are the wisest is another question), but the differences between humans and other creatures is one of degree, not one of kind. They are – quite literally – our relatives, and we are all dependent on the Earth to sustain our lives. If we have inherent value and rights then so do they.
It matters what we believe.
As above, so below. As within, so without.
What we believe about the universe determines what we can imagine, and what we can imagine determines what we can create. I am thankful that the people of Bolivia are creating something the people of the United States could not.
But I can imagine a future where the majority worldview in North America will be more compatible with indigenous, Pagan, and scientific worldviews, and I am committed to making that future a reality.
It matters what we believe.
As above, so below. As within, so without.
From an activist viewpoint I see the best way to create such a law in the US is to introduce it at town meetings (or the equivalent) for individual towns.counties to adopt such language. From there spread it outward statewide then nationwide.
Something as powerful as recognizing Mother Earth has rights will only come to fruition through grassroots work. I just can’t see such a bill get anywhere in a state legislature or the US Congress. But, please, prove me wrong!
I think the importance of the indigenous perspective in the formation and codification of these kinds of laws in places like Bolivia and Ecuador can’t be emphasized enough!
In the same way that some of our concepts about basic human rights grew out of the philosophies of liberal capitalism from several centuries ago – and led to things like child labor laws, workers rights, and eventually the women’s and civil rights movements – I wonder if (and hope that) these steps to address environmental protection may be the first wave of a revolution in how we think of about the way we organize our communities and our political systems. We may look back a century or two from now and see Bolivia and Ecuador as leading voices in what may become a sweeping shift in perspective – in the same way we look to the history of democracy and liberalism in Britain and France (and to a lesser extent, the U.S.) and still study the influential work of thinkers of that time.
That’s my hope, at least.
If the U.S. drags its feet on acknowledging the inherent value and sentience of the natural world, well – we’ll be on the wrong side of history with a long and difficult process of catch-up ahead of us.
Thank you for this. I completely agree that the way people live and physically relate to the world directly expresses their cultural and spiritual worldview. I also agree that both the secular and religious aspects of the dominant (civilized) worldview are fundamentally the same – a mechanistic worldview that sees everything in the physical world as devoid of spirit (including the physical bodies of humans). Spirit only exists in “heaven”, in “God” who is not of this world. In their view, he “created” this world, but I think that dichotomy between creator (subject) and creation (object) makes it easy to consider the world as a collection of inanimate objects that can (and should) be owned and used by humans.
In fact, I think this assumption is in inherent in our very language structure, and since words have power, the hidden assumptions in language exert a powerful influence on the way people think about and relate to the world.
Unfortunately, I also think those assumptions underlie science as well. I agree that the discoveries of science show our interconnectedness and are increasingly proving the mechanistic worldview to be a lie (especially quantum physics). However, science and its methodology originated in a mechanistic worldview, and still fundamentally express it. Even quantum physicists who know that the act of observing changes the thing being observed STILL try as hard as they can to separate out particles and study them in isolation – because if one concedes that everything influences everything else in infinite subtle ways, and that it is impossible to account for all those influences, then it is no longer possible to practice the scientific method.
Just looking at the practices of science – the torturous experiments done on living beings, the worship of the god of progress (though they’d never call it a god, since it isn’t made of spirit), the slavish dedication to the development of ever-more-complex technology without any consideration of the impacts of that technology, etc etc – and it becomes very clear that modern science is just as much a proponent and expression of the hierarchical, mechanistic worldview as the dominant civilized religions are.
In fact, I think science takes that mechanistic worldview to the next level – to its obvious conclusion – by eliminating the existence of spirit (“god”) entirely. Just look at postmodernism, and its visions of cybernetics (merging man and machine), artificial intelligence, etc – the common theme is the human mind escaping “the prison of the flesh”. That is the terrifying direction the mechanistic worldview, and science, is taking us.
Science is not an entity in its own right. It is a methodical approach to learning and understanding, and that is all it is. Science cannot be a proponent of anything. When you demonize science you are erring in the same manner that the Christians err, by anthropomorphizing a practice; creating a “Satan”. Nor is it accurate to stereotype the practices of scientists as above, although I have no doubt that some scientists embody that stereotype. I and many other scientists like me incorporate an appreciation for the natural world into our practices. This is not new; the dysfunction you point out is recent.
As a medical scientist, I agree with Meical. It’s important not to slip into demonizing mindsets and reify “Science” (turning a process into a thing). >>because if one concedes that everything influences everything else in infinite subtle ways, and that it is impossible to account for all those influences, then it is no longer possible to practice the scientific method.<<
Yes, and no. If you've ever had to calculate distances for projectiles, I can guarantee you Newtonian mechanics does a bang up job; quantum effects are small enough to be unimportant (at least from a human perspective).
Scientific approaches in *most* cases are not sufficient unto themselves, however. Just because your right hand cannot wear a catcher's mitt, doesn't make it evil. You need a left AND a right hand (and two legs, typically, and a head) in order to play baseball. Likewise, scientific reductionist methods are needed in many human activities, but scientific thinking alone does not suffice except in a few narrow circumstances.
Medicine is a good example to use for this point, because while we use scientific reasoning in our approach, we acknowledge medicine is science *and* art. When I block an AIDS patient's HIV with medications, adding 30 years to his expected life span, that is the power of science, baby; and it's gorgeous like a Georgia rose. The knife-like precision of scientific reasoning is Power. BUT… the wellness of that person is not merely about blocking their virus. Their spirit, too, needs nourishment, usually in the form of hope–otherwise, they might not take the pills that could keep them alive. That's the art of medicine. The best docs tap into science but know it's not sufficient to produce full healing.
In Pagan circles we sometimes speak of White Magic and Black Magic. Science-a way of knowing–represents Power, just as Magic does. Could there be White Science (e.g. blocking a retrovirus, and giving a child back her father), and Black Science (e.g. using nuclear fusion to make a bomb)? How we apply the power falls into the realm of ethics.
And that gets back to the story at hand: Laws merely represent formal recognition of ethical relations accepted by a culture–and those ethics derive from a worldview. If the majority of your fellow citizens believe in a Creator deity who gave humans command over Nature, then a law protecting Her from interference by humans is very, very unlikely. Especially if it gets in the way of wealthy oligarchs whose exploitation of Nature allows them to remain wealthy and in charge.
Rick, I like the last thing you said – a very succinct and accurate way of putting it.
About the science thing, I disagree that science is merely “a way of knowing”. It is more than just a process (the scientific method); it manifests in many physical things, like institutions, technology, and experiments on living beings. And those things have real-world consequences. Science is a product of the dominant culture’s mechanistic worldview, and at the same time it has a huge impact on what people think.
Take modern medicine, for example. I just recently read an article about how only a small percentage of commonly-used medical procedures have been found (by research) to be effective. The majority were found to be ineffective, and a significant percentage were actually found to be more harmful than beneficial [http://discovermagazine.com/2010/nov/11-the-problem-with-medicine-don.t-know-if-most-works/?searchterm=medical%20procedures]. Basically, medical scientists are developing and promoting many ineffective, and even harmful, procedures and technologies. Why? Because they make the “health” industry rich. Technology is not neutral, and neither is science.
John, beautifully written. I agree with everything you said.