earth democracy

[niyad]

Principles of Vandana Shiva's Earth Democracy movement: 10 principals of justice, sustainability and peace

1. Ecological Democracy - Democracy of all life

We are all members of the Earth community. We all have the duty to protect the rights and welfare of all species and all people. No humans have the right to encroach on the ecological space of other species and other people, or treat them with cruelty and violence.

2. Intrinsic worth of all Species and Peoples

All species, humans and cultures have intrinsic worth. They are subjects, not objects of manipulation or ownership. No humans have the right to own other species, other people or the knowledge of other cultures through patents and other intellectual property rights.

3. Diversity in Nature and Culture

Defending biological and cultural diversity is a duty of all people. Diversity is an end in itself, a value, a source of richness both material and cultural.

4. Natural Rights to Sustenance

All members of the Earth Community including all humans have the right to sustenance -- to food and water, to safe and clean habitat, to security of ecological space. These rights are natural rights, they are birthrights given by the fact of existence on earth and are best protected through community rights and commons. They are not given by states or corporations, nor can they be extinguished by state or corporate action. No state or corporation has the right to erode or undermine these natural rights or enclose the commons that sustain all through privatisation or monopoly control.

. . . . . . .

http://www.earthlight.org/2002/essay47_democracy.html

[MineralMan]

1. There are obvious logical contradictions in that.

For example, humans cannot grow food in quantities sufficient to feed the human population without disturbing ecosystems. This creates a logical conflict between statement 1 and statement 4.

How do you reconcile that conflict?

[ozone_man]

3. For starters, stop growing human population.

Stop the endless expansion of agriculture to support greater and greater human populations. Work toward negative population growth. This means confronting religion and capitalism, the endless growth model, e.g., 3% GDP growth mentality. It is unsustainable.

Equally important is making agriculture sustainable and less damaging ecologically. Stopping the use of pesticides and fertilizers is perhaps the most important. Stop Monsanto, Bayers, corporate control of agriculture.

Realistically, there has always been starvation and probably always will be. Solving the situation by promoting more agriculture, just exacerbates the problem by causing more population. The problem can only be solved by sustainable agriculture, sustainable economies, sustainable populations, education, ... Treat the causes, not the symptoms.

Conflict ends when we learn to respect and revere nature again, along with community.

[MineralMan]

4. Uh, that does not address my statement.

All agriculture, no matter how primitive, disrupts habitat. It is impossible to grow food without doing so.

There is a logical conflict in the statements in the OP. How do you address that?

Good luck.

[ozone_man]

10. I thought I did.

"For example, humans cannot grow food in quantities sufficient to feed the human population without disturbing ecosystems."

By not using pesticides or fertilizers, practicing organic and sustainable farming, sustainable economies, restricting companies like Monsanto, which perpetuate environmental abuse.

It is true that agriculture, and everything 6+ billion people do affects nature, the point is to minimize it. We really should ungrow our population over the next 100+ years. 1-2 billion is plenty. The unlimited growth mentality needs to end. This endless MSM bombardment about 3% GDP growth. We need ungrowth.

Not hopeful that these changes will be implemented, but that's what we need to survive as an intact Earth.

[MineralMan]

6. OK. I did that. I decided not to reproduce in 1965, when I was

20 years old. May I eat, now?

Can you explain some ways that you have acted to ameliorate the population situation?

[Annata4Peace]

2. On Point 1

Who protects the rights of the zebra against the lion?

[MineralMan]

5. Nicely asked, Grasshoper.

We humans, like all species, are a naturally-evolved part of the ecosystem of the planet. The problem with the statement in the OP is that it does not recognize that. The lion cannot eat without doing violence to another species. It is the evolutionary process that has created the system. The lion performs an important function in the food chain.

Treating humans as some sort of evil alien pest isn't the answer.

[wiggs]

7. Aside from species rights stuff that many might not relate to...the book is very

worthwhile wrt its discussion about the commons...and how sustainability, security, and justice suffers when the commons are raided by those in power. The commons refers to all kinds of physical and intellectual property.

A good read.

[cali]

8. no thank you.

so do all species have the same intrinsic worth? for instance, is a mosquito or leech have the same intrinsic value as a human being? And is this saying that we don't have the right to own a dog or a cat or a horse?

And why should a mosquito have a right to sustenance? What does the author mean by no right to "erode or undermine natural rights?"

What about birth control, for example? Isn't that manipulation? Or spaying of dogs and cats? Can we raise animals for food?

This is such utter garbage. Stupidest shit I've read in some time. gad, I hate the fucking stupid.

[MineralMan]

9. The basic premises are faulty. That makes the logic faulty.

You raise pertinent questions, none of which can be answered in a way that doesn't destroy the logic of this approach.

The unspoken premise in this kind of book is that humans are a toxic species that should not exist. That is never said, but it is implicit in much of the argument. I suppose the person who wrote the book exempts him or herself from that characterization, though. Always interesting.

Typically, such treatises suggest that a much lower population is a desirable thing. Oddly, they never suggest how that is to be accomplished. I'm afraid that would present some rather unpopular means of accomplishing the goal.

Faulty premises, faulty logic, and distinctly ugly conclusions to be drawn. Uff da!