h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

There's such a lot of talk about human rights. But are humans the only beings that have rights? In particular, I'm thinking of the non-human beings that exist - mainly, right now, the other living beings that exist on the planet Earth.

Just for a quick detour, though ... suppose we found living beings on other planets (no matter where). Suppose some of these beings were sentient and of intelligence comparable to ourselves. Suppose these beings are otherwise very different from us. Would they, too, have 'rights'? And, if so, on what basis? And also - what would those rights be called, if not 'human rights'? Furthermore - in applying the concepts of 'rights' to them - should we consult them about it, or simply assign the same rights we consider fundamentally 'ours' to them? In other words - are 'human rights' really as fundamental as we suppose them to be?

Taking the detour back to the main road ... suppose we discover that other beings *here on planet Earth* are in fact a lot more sentient and intelligent than we previously supposed ... wouldn't those creatures deserve 'rights' as well?

Think about beings such as gorillas, chimps, urangutans, bonobos. Or dolphins and whales.

The question is: what is it that makes *human* rights, as such, so 'fundamental', and that disallows the concept of 'rights' being applied to non-human beings?

Yeah, I know there are animal-rights activists. I don't like them much, in fact. When applied to animals, I believe the concept of 'rights' breaks down completely ... not that I don't think that there is value in the concept, but not as an *absolute* concept. We need a looser interpretation and formulation of the entire 'idea' of rights ... or better yet, for the deeper concerns *underlying* all of this rights-talk.

But anyways - for my own ideas now - I think the planet Earth must also have certain 'rights'. The planet Earth must have the right to continue being a living and life-sustaining environment, with a very intricate and balanced ecology operating, and vast populations of an incredible diversity of living creatures. Personally I do see the earth as an organism ... and, right now, I see humanity as a disease afflicting that organism.

Then I also believe that non-human beings must have certain rights. Every existing species must have, in my view, the right to develop naturally as a species, without being threatened by extinction from *our* activities. But here the concept of a rigid 'right' breaks down ... because it may be supposed that, simultaneously, there exist these two rights:

1. The right of the Earth to continue developing through the evolution of new species and the competition between them that results in the extinction of some;

2. The claim of any 'species' to perpetuation rather than extinction.

Which is more fundamental?

I personally believe that we need to find out more. We still know extremely little about the living system that is the Planet Earth. But right now I think we must make a commitment towards the perpetuation of the presently-existing species, because too many species have already become extinct as a result of our activities. Right now, the existence of threatened species of animals and plants must be secured. They must be helped to increase their numbers, first and foremost, until none of them are in immediate danger of extinction anymore.

Then, ecosystems must be allowed - or actively helped, if necessary - to regain their former level of functioning. The entire ecology of the Earth must be repaired untill it works more or less as it has been working until our arrival. I'm not kidding - humans have *immensely* altered the ecological functioning of the planet! If anybody wants to know just how - I can try to explain it all, but firstly my own understanding is still rudimentary, and second, even my rudimentary understanding is very complex and will take very long to explain. But the rock-bottom line is this: as a result of human activity, ecosystems don't function any more as they did in the past - they are no longer interacting with each other efficiently ... ecosystems have been cut into 'patches' that now operate separately rather than interconnectedly. To use a metaphor - the world's ecological 'nerves and blood vessels' have been blocked and severed. This means that the world, as a system, cannot respond any more to local or global disturbances.

That is what we also need to put right, first of all!

Once we have put right these two things - the extinction crisis, and the disruption of the world's ecology - we can debate whether to 'let nature go its course' or not.

Anyways back to an earlier supposition ... suppose that humans are indeed a very dangerous disease-organism that has arisen accidentally through the workings of natural selection. Suppose that our activity is now threatening the wellbeing of the Earth ... does the Earth have the right to rid itself of us, in whatever way possible, for the sake of its own wellbeing?

Yeah I know, this talking of the Earth as an organism can be confusatory. I do want to make a point, though, about a concept such as 'fundamental rights'. We have too little understanding of ourselves and our world, in my view, to go on talking about anything 'fundamental'. We do not know yet what the true fundamentals are. We have only hints and intuitions right now.

Interesting subject, Willem. This is something I think about sometimes, too, though admittedly not to the extent, nor in quite the same way, as yourself.

As far as "human rights" go, there's a concept that has gotten me into much debate. I generally try to avoid discussing the subject, because people will get so angry with me about it. I know that you, whther you agree with me or not, will not give me hard time, so here's what I think (if I can put it into words properly).

The problem, or one of the problems, I see with the concept of "human rights" is that just what those "rights" are is so subjective. Here in the US, the framework of our Constitution is based on the fact that human beings have certain self-evident and inalienable rights. But at what cost? The "rights" of one person or group of people quite often come at the expense of those of others, as well as of the earth and her non-human inhabitants. At what point will human beings realize that along with rights, come responsibilities?

What is especially troubling to me is the idea of "god-given" rights (an idea I do not share, for the obvious reasons). The idea that humans not only have a right to, but have been admonished to, "be fruitfaul and multiply" and have dominion over the earth, because they are created "in the image of god". That's a very different way of looking at things than my own. (And I also happen to think there is a difference between "dominion" and "domination", but I will try not to get off on tangents).

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure that there is any such thing as an inherent "right" to anything. I also see the world as a single organism, and the idea that my brain or eyes might have "rights" that my appendix or gallbladder do not is a strange one. But I thinks I might be stretching that metaphor a bit too far and not making sense. Anyway, again, I digress.

Even if you want to argue that the earth is a gift given to humans by god, humans have still been very unnapreciative and have acted irresposibly. I think we should be working very hard to take care of the earth, treating her with love and respect, and making at least an effort to co-exist and interact with all living things in a way that is not so destructive.

Obviously, I am not about to give up my "civilized" way of living and move into a tent in the wilderness. I depend on, and enjoy, the amenities and luxuries my lifestyle affords me. But I endeavor to use them as thoughtfully and responsibly as possible.

One thing which really concerns me is overpopulation. We are destroying the earth, driving species of plants, animals and fish into extinction because there isn't enough room for us all. Because people in industrialized nations want a big family or a bigger home, because their religion forbids birth control etc. And in less industrialized nations, I'm not even sure what the causes are.

Human beings might very well be a destructive "disease" which threatens the wellbeing of the earth. I can't say I'd like to see humanity wiped out to restore her well-being. I have no desire to see the destruction of humanity. I just wish it were possible for human beings, the earth, and all of the creatures that dwell within her, to have a symbiotic relationship rather than parasitical ones. But I don't know if that *is* possible, nor if enough people care enough to try.

Hello psychocandy! Thanks very much for reading and responding. Thanks as well for this ... "I know that you, whther you agree with me or not, will not give me hard time" ... that is one of the nicest things anybody's ever said to me! In my own mind, I still often see myself as a rabid right-wing extremist, rigid and intolerant to the very core ... and wonder if I could ever escape my past. I'm really trying my best to be openminded and accommodating to people with different ideas, and don't know if I'm succeeding. I do still have very firm ideas and opinions on certain things ... but I really don't want to be giving people 'a hard time' on anything. So thanks for saying that!

My own attitude to the matter of 'rights' and as to their fundamentalness, or not, is this.

Saying that we have 'rights' means to me that we must make a commitment to each other. That commitment stands or falls on the basis of the attitude we have to ourselves and to each other. To me that attitude has to be one of Love - that we wish the same good things for other people as we wish for ourselves.

In fact I rather speak about Love and Compassion (capital letters intentionally) than about 'rights'. I can see a society where every person and every group shouts about their 'rights' but have little or no love or compassion for each other. In such a society, 'rights' may always be a problem. But in a society where love and compassion is the rule, and people are interested in each other, find out about each other, and talk to each other, 'rights' may not even be an issue.

Compassion forces one to try and adopt the viewpoints of others than one's self. Thus one will not be concerned just with one's own interests, or that of the group one identifies with, or the country one happens to live in. One tries to adopt all viewpoints that actually can exist, and tries to see things from all such perspectives, so as to arrive at a view that is as fair and just as possible.

You talk about 'god-given rights' and I have a problem with that too, because who can speak on behalf of God? But rights may similarly be described as being 'enshrined' in the US Constitution or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the UN. The word 'enshrined' elevates this declaration, document, or whatever, to the status of a religious doctrine. Nobody may argue with it. It is holy and unassailable. Whereas in truth it is a human creation and thus subject to human fallibility.

I agree that rights should come with responsibilities. But again I say that we might be able to do better talking about something better than 'rights'. For instance, extend the love and compassion I talked about earlier, to encompass the non-human world as well. It is possible to love nature, and the ways of nature, and non-human living beings. Love enforces a sense of responsibility ... one who loves, does not wish harm to come to that which s/he loves, and cares about *all aspects* relevant to the one s/he loves.

A well-developed sense of responsibility requires that we constantly evaluate our actions and our thoughts, our very motives.

You talk about giving up a civilised lifestyle and living in a tent ... me, I am aiming for a simpler, sustainable, and less wasteful lifestyle. I haven't found it yet, but when I do, what I'll do is to use it as an example to other people to *demonstrate* that such a lifestyle can be comfortable, enjoyable, rich and rewarding. If this can be *demonstrated* to other people, then maybe other people will feel comfortable in joining in. Anyways this may not even just be a single 'way of life' ... it could be a *method* that can be applied by different people leading different ways of life, just in each case making the person's way of life more responsible, less wasteful, not to mention more 'in tune' with the ways of Planet Earth.

Yes, I really do think that the Earth is an organism of a kind, even with its own 'Mind', which must be very complex. But I am convinced that we need a lot more study and research before we could understand the nature of the Earth and of its Mind.

I won't like to see humanity wiped off the face of the Earth either! I would very much rather that us humans 'wake up', realise what we're doing, and voluntarily stop doing it and try another way.

Anyways I will post this now, but I'm coming back in a while ... I'd like to give you a link to an interesting website I found just after having posted this entry! You might be interested in it.

Here is the link ...

http://www.telusplanet.net/public/gdufour/HumanEarthRights.htm

The whole site is interesting and touches on much that we're discussing here. Important - this site has a view that is religious in nature, but not orthodox. I would like to discuss the religious views and experiences expressed there, in fact. There is some of this that I agree with, and some that I don't agree with. Anyways the site is huge and many views are expressed repeatedly. The fascinating thing to me is the way this thing is starting to emerge all over the world, independently it seems. There is resonance with the things I've been saying and experiencing.

We need a bill of human responsibilty to balance the "rights"

Thanks for the link, Willem. I had a power outage this afternoon (which I thought was kind of funny, my roommate was pacing the floors, ranting on about how he couldn't "do anything", and I just curled up on the couch with a book... it's all in the perspective, I guess) and have only just gotten back online.

I've read some of the stuff at the web site, it was all very interesting. To me, it sounds a bit lilitant, but that just might be my take on it.

The religious parts were interesting, but I'll need to re-read a bit in order to fully grasp what the author is trying to say. I'd he happy to discuss some of the views expressed, though I have to say I don't agree with them. The one fundamental difference betweens the religious views expressed and mine being that I don't believe in "God", which renders many of the other points moot. But I'm always up for hearing other people's experiences and perspectives.

I found the article about the WTO, "free trade" and the global economy very interesting, though I'm fairly dense when it comes to economics. I'm afraid I'd be out of my depth in a discussion on that subject, albeit a fascinating one.

Abbi, you're absolutely right! A Bill of Responsibilities would be a good thing to have. I wonder how long it would take for that to be twisted into a means for domination, power and profit for governments as well?

Hi again abbi and psychocandy! Basically, you certainly don't have to buy into all of the stuff that guy said. You don't have to accept his idea of 'God' ... but what I'm interested in, is his idea of 'souls' ... particularly his idea of the soul of the planet Earth, and the soul of Humanity as a whole. But to me, at least, his idea of God, and the idea of getting revelations from God - and most of all, the content of his particular 'revelation' - is interesting ... because I myself have experienced similar 'things'. In my own case, I question whether they are revalations from 'God', though... but I think they may be some form of feedback that goes down from a higher-order sort of 'mind' to lower-order minds. But in my case, the main 'revelations' have been almost exactly the same as his ...

*start quote*

1. Thou shall be One with humanity and thou shall have a higher purpose, and that is to propagate Life throughout the Universe. I shall provide you with means to travel the galaxies.

2. Thou shall have another higher purpose, and that is to manage Earth responsibly.

3. The Soul of Humanity shall be your guiding hand to follow as my hand.

4. The Soul of Humanity is a part of my own consciousness, my Spirit, my way of being with you and you with me.

5. Thou shall banish war as a solution to problems between communities. All Souls involved with war, directly or indirectly, shall face the Soul of Humanity to be purified. All Souls involved in the making of weapons, war product and equipment shall be facing the Soul of Humanity.

6. The stewardship of the ecological base is the essential prerequisite for the effectiveness and exercise of all rights recognized for human beings, and it has to be given priority before the fulfilment of various economic and social wishes. Demands resulting from the socio-economic system of a particular country have to find their limits in the protection of the global ecosystem. Vital interests of future generations have to be considered as having priority before less vital interests of the present generation. All Souls involved with the careless destruction of the life-support system of the planet, directly or indirectly, shall face the Soul of Humanity to be purified.

7. Thou shall be ethically responsible and accountable locally, globally and throughout the Universe.

8. Although you may foresee correctly the Universe with a beginning and expanding, what you observe is a part of a greater whole that is infinite and eternal. You shall have faith in your good heart, mind and Spirit to reach a much greater understanding of the Universe. The Soul of Humanity shall guide you on the way.

9. Souls traveling the galaxies to propagate life shall be good Souls only. They shall still be a part of the Soul of Humanity. There higher purpose shall be to spread life of various forms throughout the Universe.

10. Thou shall live a life as per global ethical values developed by the Soul of Humanity. Thou shall applied these values responsibly and wisely in all situations and places.

*End quote*

I am in agreement with most of this, and I can elaborate on and explain the various points that may seem weird at first reading.

In my case, ideas like these came into my mind as if out of the blue, and changed me from being a conservative calvinist Christian into a very New-Age sort of individual.

By the way, when you say 'lilitant', do you mean 'militant'?

Anyways the site is interesting, apart from the strange religious views (but to me they're not so strange) for the ideas of ecology and ecological responsibility, among others. I thought of what you said because you used the word 'symbiotic' and the site uses that term as well ... speaking of 'humanity's symbiotical relationships'. Cooperation, rather than competition. People living symbiotically with other people, with non-human living beings, and with the Planet as a whole.

I did find the site to be very interesting, and look forward to reading more this weekend when I've got enough time to really sit and read at length.

Yes, when I typed "lilitant", I did mean "militant". Stupid fingers!

Anyway, I've been feeling kind of sickly for a couple of days so I ought to get to bed, only 8 hours till it's time to get up again, and I still need dinner and a bath!

I will be back on the weekend to read more of the site and discuss it with you, just didn't want to ignore you completely in the meantime!

I will take a look at that Willem
*finger crossed - if computer willing*

That site sounds a bit like Scientology.
The German man who did the writing cannot be found anywhere (by me so far)except when connected to that same page

Did you see the parts about the future needs of interplanetary colonization? Seems if we were commited, this planet could be saved.

I think we will do the same to other planets if we think of them as a "way out" of the destruction we have started here. We are still humans repeating the same mistakes if we think we can escape our present responsibilities.

Hi again abbi and psychocandy! Hoping you both are doing not-too-badly.

Psychocandy, I don't think the guy or his views are very *militant* as such, but they're very firm and perhaps a bit inflexible. Some of the things I *disagree* with are the idea of a single Earth Government, and that America, Britain, France, Germany and Russia should give the Islamic countries 8 trillion dollars in repayment for the harm they caused them ... and some other things as well. But anyways, I think that some of the ideas can be used as *starting points* for thinking about the issues of Human Rights and Earth Rights/Environmental Rights. As far as religious views are concerned ... the way I read the site, the guy says that he has his own particular religious views (the whole bit about the Soul of Humanity and so on) but that people of different religions can in fact all find God or do the will of God in various different ways. So in that sense the guy is tolerant of other religions, and I think that's good. Personally I know that people can be good and happy people if they're Christians, or Muslims, or agnostic or atheist, or a lot of other things.

I don't know much about Scientology ... what I heard of it, is not so good. What I've heard ... basically, it's a religion started by science-fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard, and it is based on a process of spiritual development that goes step-by-step ... at each step you learn some new 'mysteries'. I've heard the religion is very brain-washy and controlling of its followers and also gets a heck of a lot of money from them. So I'm not sure if it's a very good thing.

My own religious ideas are based on my own experience of myself and of my world. It incorporates much of what I know about science and the Universe. I've always experienced a very profound sense of being connected to other people and living things. I've read and pondered a lot about the nature of the human mind, especially its 'deeper' less-accessible levels. There is an incredible amount of stuff going on below the threshold of consciousness. I've pondered the whole matter of 'consciousness' as well, and it's a mysterious phenomenon. Then there are some more profound mysteries, such as the nature of *time*. Time is one of the most profoundly mysterious 'things' that exist. Then there's the whole issue about the fundamental 'stuff' of 'whatever exists'. What is reality 'like' at rock bottom? What is the basic 'stuff' out of which everything that exists is built? I go deeper into this question than merely searching for 'fundamental particles' and interactions ... I ask about the very nature ... the qualities ... of those particles and interactions. Then I ask questions about the origin of the universe, and of potential other universes. Science is nowhere near answering those questions right now. My own 'religion' is basically the way I've come to answer those questions for myself ... based on knowledge but also on intuition and subtle introspective/meditational experiments.

The view that I have right now is that much of the stuff that exists in the Universe has 'mind-like' qualities as the foundation. Also, everything in the Universe is interconnected. I think every *mind* is interconnected with other minds (at levels that go above or below the normal conscious processes) and that all of these interlinked minds form a single 'Super-Mind' which is God. So basically I'm a monotheist, because I'm a holist. But the 'God' I believe in is not the identical god as believed in by followers of revealed religions. It's not a male or female God, and it may be very difficult for us humans to perceive its 'Will'. But we ourselves are parts of God.

I've not quite come to grips with the concept of 'Time' yet ... but I do believe that time is a mode of experience, and there's also a mode of experience that is 'outside Time' ... apart from the way we sense time as inextricably moving forward. I think humans can have access to this kind of 'timelessness' and that, if we do that, we start merging with God ... in other words, accessing higher levels of the Universal Mind than we usually perceive.

All of this, for me, is extremely relevant to matters of human rights as well as to the Planet we live on, and the Universe around us.

Hey, is anybody still here?

At any rate, a point I wanted to make, was this:

People don't have to believe the same things for them to work together. In as far as we *do* agree with each other, we can work together. On issues regarding the environment, I think consensus can be found between people of various different religions, and people who are agnostics and atheists. These days there are lots of people who are concerned about the Earth. Some of them are new-age tree-hugger types, some are atheists, some belong to traditional religions, but all are concerned about pollution, global warming, the extinction crisis, and so forth ... and I think that we should be willing to work together with others, to the extent that we share the same concerns as they.

Hiya Willem, I am still here and haven't lost interest, just been busy and tired.

I read Dianetics a while back, I didn't know if I was missing something but it did sound a bit brain-washy. Maybe I'll read it again just to see.

Anyway, I'm a tree-hugging new-agey type who also follows a "traditional" sort of spiritual path, though it's also very much my own. Life and the environment are a big part of it, as I think of all living organisms as part of a living, collective "soul" or being, none more important than another and none able to survive without the rest.

I am always willing to consider new ways to work with others to bring about positive change. Some things seems a lost cause sometimes- like the fact that I pay double for blue trash bags which are used to sort recyclables in, then see a bit on the newsmagazine prgrams at night about how the city just dumps them into the landfills with the rest of the trash. It's frustrating. But I do my part as best I can. adhering to a vegequarian diet (no farm-raised fish, either), using products which are recycled, biodegradable, and not tested on animals to the best of my ability, and giving what time and money I can to environmental agencies and concerns. I am always open to new suggestions and ideas!!

"...humans have *immensely* altered the ecological functioning of the planet!" So have buffalo, flies and earth worms. Sparrows and mosquitoes have spread just as far as we have. Ok not to the polar zone, but then, penguins have spread to the tropics. And short of fusing a few bombs humans will never alter the earth in a manner as the ice ages and volcanism have.
My point is that I find it very difficult to establish what level of interference should be permissable.
And who should control it.
You say you don't like animal rightists. Neither do I, which I think comes from a sneaking suspicion that animal rightist is not about loving animals, but about hating other humans, while putting the own pure and selfrighteous self on the soapbox to lay down the law. I don't like most environmentalists either, since i have the sneaking suspicion that it's just a sort of territory grabbing in desguise, as of course the responsible chosen would get to go where I'm barred.
On the other hand I go absolutely ballistic when I see animals mistreated and I never litter.
Just a few jumbled thoughts thrown in here.