‘Nature Rights’ Paganism Advancing in the West

Ireland may be about to establish iron-clad legal protections for nature, thereby establishing public policies in which human flourishing would come last.

A tiny Giant Sequoia tree sapling, arising from the ashes of the 2021 KNP Complex Fire, is seen in Kings Canyon National Park on the western slope of California's Sierra Nevada mountains, on Aug. 24, 2023. Robyn Beck/AFP via Getty Images

Commentary

Did you hear the news? Ireland may soon grant human-type rights to nature.

“Rights” to nature? Really? Alas, yes. From the BBC story: “The Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action has recommended the government advance a referendum on protecting biodiversity. The move would see nature bestowed with rights comparable to those of people.”

So, what are “Nature’s” supposed rights? The BBC explains that “elements of nature, such as trees, mountains and rivers” would be “recognised as entities with rights to exist and flourish, to be restored, regenerated, and respected.”

In other words, Ireland may be about to establish iron-clad legal protections for flies, viruses, trees, fish, rivers, mountains, weeds, granite outcrops, etc.—akin to a right to life for all of nature and its various aspects—thereby establishing public policies and public attitudes in which human flourishing would come last.

The Nature [with a capital N] rights movement should be viewed as a form of neo-Earth paganism because it personalizes the natural world. For example, the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature’s “Universal Declaration for the Rights of Mother Earth” declares unscientifically that “Mother Earth is a living being,” with “inalienable“ rights that ”arise from the same source as existence”—a  generating cause that it doesn’t identify—without “distinction of any kind, such as may be made between organic and inorganic beings [!], species, origin, use to human beings, or any other status.”

The term “being” is defined very loosely in the Declaration as including “ecosystems, natural communities, species, and all other natural entities which exist as part of Mother Earth.” In other words, according to the Nature rights movement, at best, humans are just another animal in the forest of no greater moral status than any other organic life or inorganic features. (It’s worth noting at this point that at least six rivers have already been granted rights.) Moreover, humans are in some sense enslaved by Mother Earth as the Declaration requires us to “prevent human activities” from violating nature’s rights.

Ecuador’s Constitution granting rights to nature is similarly paganistic. It references the Incan goddess Pachamama as the possessor of Nature’s rights, stating: “Nature or Pachamama, where life is reproduced and exists, has the right to exist, persist, maintain, and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions, and its processes in evolution.”

Such neo-paganism is beginning to seep into unexpected places beyond indigenous societies and among radical green anti-humanists. For example, Pachamama sculptures have been present during some Catholic services, including an event in Rome at the Amazon Synod meeting, and they’ve popped up at church services in Mexico and Latin America.

Paganism aside, think about the catastrophic impact that granting rights to nature would have on human thriving. Nothing that we would want to accomplish or build would be free from the specter of being thwarted. Want to drain a swamp? Good luck. The brackish water, pollywogs, mosquitoes, snakes, crawfish, and even algae are all part of nature, so the swamp stays! Indeed, if individual and collective aspects of the natural world all have the “right” to “exist, persist, maintain, and regenerate,” what human uses of the natural world would be safe from being impeded? At the very least, “Nature rights” would require extensive environmental impact reports and ecological studies before any major enterprise could proceed. Good grief, what a mess.

So, how would Nature enforce her “rights?” Every human being alive would be deputized to bring lawsuits to uphold the rights of every aspect of existence on the planet. In other words, the most radical, anti-human environmentalists would be empowered to harness courts to impede any use of the Earth’s bounty—either by way of a court order or using the prospect of lawfare to chill investments. Talk about a full employment guarantee for lawyers!

The human harm caused by these tactics has already started. Panama recently granted rights to nature, resulting in the throttling of a major mining project, as reported by CBS News:

“Panama’s Supreme Court used the new [nature rights] law to effectively shut down a $10 billion copper mine that opponents said threatened tropical jungles and water supplies. In Ecuador, another copper mine was blocked because it violated the rights of a nearby forest.”

So, all of the employment, increased wealth, and other human gains that would’ve been reaped from these now never-to-be-opened mines—in very poor countries—will never materialize. And we’re supposed to cheer?

Now, imagine applying Nature rights law even more broadly, say, as a means of shutting down fossil fuels in the generation of energy to prevent global warming. That proposal is already gaining steam. A draft United Nations treaty to combat climate change states that the nations of the world should be bound legally to recognize and defend “the rights of Mother Earth to ensure harmony between humanity and nature.” If this proposed treaty ever goes into effect, kiss prosperity goodbye.

And here’s a final foreboding thought: We’re already too reliant on China for our raw materials and manufactured supplies. If we grant “rights” to nature, our ability to mine, fish, timber harvest, produce energy, etc., from our own resources will be materially impeded.

Concomitantly, China would never be so stupid. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) doesn’t even grant rights to humans. It would fully develop its own resources and those of countries—such as Afghanistan—that it dominates, meaning the world would grow even more reliant than it already is on the CCP tyranny to supply it with the materials required for modern economies to function. That would come at a terrible cost, both economically and for freedom in the world.

The Nature rights movement is anti-human, both in its fundamental principles and intended policy outcomes. We had better prevent its spread while we still can. Otherwise, we will soon find ourselves at the mercy of radical environmentalists bent on destroying the West’s capacity to thrive—in the paganistic cause of serving the goddess Pachamama.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.