Human rights for mother nature?

[ib.me.ub]

Fuck me, we are switched on today. Rivers, lakes, forests etc.

Next time you raise a point about a subset of anything at all I'm going to complain that you didn't reference the entire category, okay?

What are you on about? Complain away.

My point:

Giving an inanimate object "Rights" is nonsense, it is pushed largely for religious reasons by a group who see this inanimate object as a not just a being, but a deity.

Giving rights to living creatures is one thing, and I can support that to an extent and that would include securing their rights by preventing actions which could thwart those rights, such as the BP oil spill, we have a good case for making illegal pollution on that scale because it thwarts their rights, but saying that a collection of elements has "rights" is bizarre to say the least.

We might as well declare that space has rights and you can't thwart the freedom of space by putting something in it.

Also, suppose a Lion kills an Antelope, are we to arrest the Lion because it thwarted the rights of the Antelope?

Cattle emit massive levels of Methane, we know first hand here in New Zealand that Cattle producted Methane is responsible for as much as half of our greenhouse gas emissions, can we declare that a collection of Cows are thwarting the rights of other creatures and "mother earth" because of this?

Fuck me, without these so called elements, life cannot survive.

*Something about arguing with a brick wall*