Ecodharma: Chapter 3 (part 2)

[Doshin]

Ecodharma: Chapter 3 Part 2; page 89 to 97 (The Ecology of Property to end of Chapter)

David continues the discussion about the relationship of our species to the earth. In this section he focuses on ‘property’. Ownership of land and all that it contains is a strongly held view. In the United States private property rights are the rallying cry of many, especially when the government or others attempt to restrict how that property is used. He points out that the rights of the owner are what has historically been the focus and not the rights of the owned. However, he suggests that the Buddhist nondualist view suggests a different perspective.

The question here is not necessarily do we have the right to own things such as a house or book but whether private ownership of land, which is a portion of the ecosystem that we and all other species depend upon, gives the right to degrade the land for the benefit of a few at the detriment of many?

In the early 1970s the idea of whether other components of the land also have rights began to get traction. In 1972 Christopher D. Stone wrote a book “Should Trees Have Standing? Laws, Morality, and the Environment” where this topic was explored. The environmental movement embraced this concept to protect the environment and species. This discussion continues. Towards the end of the Chapter David discusses laws enacted in New Zealand, Ecuador, and India where the rights of the natural world have been recognized.

What are your thoughts of whether “trees having standing”?


Doshin
st

[DanM]

I found this section of the book really interesting. The focus on private land ownership reminded me of another book I recently read, 'The Book of Trespass' by Nick Hayes. In a section in that book, Hayes talked about how the land management practices on a privately owned estate used for hunting in Hebden Bridge in the UK were at least partially responsible for a severe flood there in 2015. This is a pretty clear example of how the right to use your property as you wish contributes to environmental destruction.

I also really like the idea of giving nature the same rights as a person. One thing Loy doesn't mention here is that modern corporations essentially have the same rights, so I thought it was a nice inversion of that. However, I can only see this being established over limited spaces, in much the way national parks are, and so it is unlikely to solve environmental problems on its own. But if the idea of 'trees having standing' becomes popularised, it would perhaps indicate the kind of cultural, intellectual and spiritual shift that is required to address climate change.

Gassho,
Dan
ST/LAH

[Juki]

I like the way Loy traces the origin of the word property to the Latin "proprius," meaning "one's own." The interesting thing there is that the same Latin root also gave rise to the word proprietor, which is essentially a synonym for owner, as well as the word propriety, which has come to mean something akin to good etiquette or "acceptance of the common norms." However, if you go back far enough, the outdated meaning of propriety is "one's own nature." Isn't that kind of what Buddhism is all about - really seeing our own nature? So, somewhere along the line, as is usually the case where money is involved, the ideas surrounding property got horribly mixed up and perverted. We stopped looking to understand and take ownership of our nature, which is part of nature in general, and we decided instead to exercise dominion over nature. And, of course, all of this goes back to the problems we have with using language to create separation, which was discussed in the earlier part of this chapter.

As for trees having standing, I like the idea of the Thai forest monks who ordain them to protect them. And the sad fact is, if trees don't have standing, pretty soon they won't be standing.

Gassho
Juki
sat today and lah

[Tairin]

I found this section of the book really interesting and thought provoking. There’s plenty to unpack.

Do trees have standing?

Yes of course they do. So does every other living thing on the planet. The question is whether we humans will recognize and respect that standing. The notion of rivers or forests having rights as a legal person and designation as a legal entity seems like a plausible approach but I wonder how well that will hold up if some key mineral or element has been found within it that humans feel is necessary. Will the legal designation be conveniently forgotten or compromised?

Part of this too is that there are those who “own” too much. Individuals and corporations that control a disproportionately large amount of the Earth.

My sense is that we’ve opened Pandora’s Box. We can’t seem to reverse or undo the effects of human society on the planet. I am not even sure we are willing to make the sacrifices necessary. There was a thread here at Treeleaf a few months back on the Half Earth Project (https://www.half-earthproject.org/). Personally I love the idea but I wonder if we humans can see past our greed to even make such an idea a reality.

Loy talks about a past when humans had a more intimate relationship with our planet. It took tens of thousands of years for human society to evolve from that world to our present reality. Now we are faced with needing to make a similarly large evolutionary change in mere years or at best decades.

I have a son who is 18 and just started college this year. He is a wonderful bright kid with a great future ahead of him. I hope for his sake and for all young peoples’ sake we can figure this out before it is too late.


Tairin
Sat today and lah

[Heiso]

The environmental personhood movement is really interesting and is at least a step in the right direction in recognising that we are not distinct from the planet we live on. That said, it's not without criticism. Namely that the flipside of having the rights of a legal person is obligation and responsibility, so would a river be liable for the damage it causes in a flood? Who enforces the river's rights and can they afford to do so? But ultimately law is a construct like any other and with the right will we can make it say whatever we want it to - so why not give a tree standing.

I really liked Dan's point about this being an inversion of corporations having separate legal personalities. Human rights, in Europe at least, have been brought in to limit the power of the state over the individual. Why not extend those rights to limit the power of corporations over the environment?

Sadly, most of the island of Great Britain has been impacted by human activity. From mass agriculture, to the large country estates shaping the countryside for hunting, to sheep farming in Wales and the Lakes, even the shoreline. I had a quick look at the link to the Half Earth project that Tairin posted and 97% of the island is under human pressure!




Gassho,

Heiso

StLah

[Naiko]

Very interesting section. I do think trees and more should have legal standing. I try to imagine amending the US Constitution with a clause like Ecuador’s, and It seems utterly improbable. The Colorado River suit Loy mentions was withdrawn by the plaintiffs just three months after it was filed. The Attorney General of Colorado threatened them with stiff sanctions for filing an improper or frivolous suit. I think it’s noteworthy that the AG said, “the case itself unacceptably impugned the state’s sovereign authority to administer natural resources for public use.” It’s value hinges on its use to humans. That’s an interesting contrast to the rivers in India and elsewhere that were given standing the federal and state governments were not protecting them adequately. https://aspenjournalism.org/colorado...by-proponents/

There is one tree in the US that “owns itself” though.

https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/tree-owns-itself?utm_medium=atlas-page&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR2sNwkZHsqufImD9tT_AQHMZpq-JE-EP7MVFjDYCKH7AKDn-GiwdffLsiM

Gassho,
Naiko
st

[Kokuu]

Wow, that line from Wendell Berry about there only being sacred places and desecrated places hit home!

This was a really interesting section with lots of ponder. Whereas not all trees in the UK have standing (and I am reminded of the fact that some Native American tribes call trees 'the standing people'), you can apply for a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to protect a tree: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tree-pre...ervation-areas

I had similar thoughts to Heiso that ownership can work both ways. Ownership can certainly encourage people to take care of something, which can not happen when land is public property with no one responsible for it, but it can also lead to exploitation. Seeing ourselves as separate from the land feels very problematic to begin with, and I very much like the way the naming of regions, rivers and mountains by tribal people, and seeing them as containing spirits leads to a form of relationship with the land that goes far beyond consumer and resources.

Loy's observation that in urban areas pretty much everything is there for our convenience is a powerful one. I guess it would be strange to do otherwise, and even public art such as sculptures is there for our enjoyment and little else, whereas nature has its own function and life completely separate to whether we happen to take pleasure in it or not.

The movements currently campaigning for freedom do very much seem to have the nature of wanting freedom to exploit without restriction or responsibility, rather than freedom from oppression. I have often pointed out that the political right are very much in love with their freedoms, but far less interested in their responsibilities.

Affording more protection to the natural world would seem to be a good way to go, but sadly we often see that even these protections can be circumvented by knowing the right people in local and national government. Rather, we need for more people to have a relationship with the land, and have respect for it built out of love (yes, Kokuu is a naive hippy...).

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday-

[Heiso]

I have often pointed out that the political right are very much in love with their freedoms, but far less interested in their responsibilities.

Yes, I think the pandemic has demonstrated how ignorant a lot of freedom lovers seem to be of JS Mills' harm principle.

I think another limit to giving trees/rivers etc legal standing is the cost of enforcing their rights, especially if trying to litigate against big corporations with deep pockets.

Gassho,

Heiso

StLah

[Tairin]

Affording more protection to the natural world would seem to be a good way to go, but sadly we often see that even these protections can be circumvented by knowing the right people in local and national government. Rather, we need for more people to have a relationship with the land, and have respect for it built out of love (yes, Kokuu is a naive hippy...).

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday-

I agree. One thing that keeps coming up is that we humans want to solve the climate crisis but not change our lifestyle. We want our cake and eat it too.

The truth is that there are changes that have to happen and our lifestyles much change. Another thing that has to happen is that human beings relationship with the land and other beings on this planet has to change


Tairin
Sat today and lah

[Doshin]

I agree. One thing that keeps coming up is that we humans want to solve the climate crisis but not change our lifestyle. We want our cake and eat it too.

The truth is that there are changes that have to happen and our lifestyles much change. Another thing that has to happen is that human beings relationship with the land and other beings on this planet has to change


Tairin
Sat today and lah

Yes

Doshin
St

[Kaisui]

I agree. One thing that keeps coming up is that we humans want to solve the climate crisis but not change our lifestyle. We want our cake and eat it too.

The truth is that there are changes that have to happen and our lifestyles much change. Another thing that has to happen is that human beings relationship with the land and other beings on this planet has to change


Tairin
Sat today and lah

Yes, agree as well. So true.

It was good to read in this chapter of some positive things that have been happening. I was surprised to read that any countries had legislated (even if it has been repealed/overturned in some places) to give natural places legal standing. I would like to read up more about this; I hope in at least some places it has continued and done some good for the environment and everyone as a whole. If it is working in New Zealand, it would be lovely if in Australia where I am, we could follow their lead. I feel Australia could follow the lead of New Zealand in many ways when it comes to respecting the culture and relationship with the land of First Peoples. Examples of things done well, or even just better, give hope for how things can change.

Gassho,
Kaisui
sat&lah