Bolivia, Mother Earth, and Unintended Consequences

Bolivia is set to pass legislation that will confer the same rights as humans to Mother Nature. The law is called la Ley de Derechos de la Madre Tierra.

I believe that not only will this legislation fail to produce its intended aim (greater conservation and respect for natural resources), but will actually produce a negative economic and environmental impact. The reason: unintended consequences.

Unintended consequences are the red-headed stepchildren of economics. They are the "unknown unknowns" that lurk around the corner from "good intention," and are directly related to "bad execution."

What unintended consequences do I believe will occur?

First - A massive drain on public resources as police, lawyers, and jails attempt to negotiate how to prosecute such "crimes against Nature." I'm sure we can all agree that it is extremely beneficial to society to protect a local water resource from pollution, be the source an aquifer, stream, ocean, or lake. However, does a squirrel have the same right to life as a human? If you run over a squirrel while driving, should you be charged with vehicular manslaughter?

Should airlines who are responsible for the death of flocks of birds be held criminally accountable? Without a doubt the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico caused unquantifiable costs to both economic and environmental resources, but should the death of an ant hold the same the penalties?

And we aren't limited to animals in the potential consequences either. If I harvest a crop and kill it to feed my family, have I committed murder? The law seems to suggest so, though I doubt in practice anyone will actually be put on trial for the death of a carrot. But there will be significant costs to the taxpayers in Bolivia while the government figures out what is worth prosecuting and what isn't.

Second - what does it mean when Mother Nature has better rights than humans? You may think I'm a little off to ask this question, but look carefully at what the rights the law says it confers to Mother Nature:

...the right to life and to exist; the right to continue vital cycles and processes free from human alteration; the right to pure water and clean air; the right to balance; the right not to be polluted; and the right to not have cellular structure modified or genetically altered. Perhaps the most controversial point is the right "to not be affected by mega-infrastructure and development projects that affect the balance of ecosystems and the local inhabitant communities".

The Declaration of Independence in the United States acknowledges the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. But the rights outlined here are not afforded to humans in the United States, and I suspect (though granted, I do not know for sure) that humans in Bolivia are treated similarly. Humans do not have the right to continue "vital cycles" - the massive increase in caesarean sections shows how Western culture has interfered with normal, physiological processes. Humans do not have the right to not be polluted - test any water anywhere in the world (yes, even Antarctica) and you will find trace amounts of antibiotics. The right not have cellular structure modified or genetically altered? Here come the eugenics and social arguments and quests for selective abortions, either in pursuit of a male heir or to avoid a genetic abnormality.

Bolivia is actually giving Mother Nature more rights than humans have. I don't know about you, but I'd be a little outraged if an ant got better treatment under the law than I did.

For these two reasons (and possibly others that I haven't thought of), I believe the new legislation in Bolivia is doomed to failure, but I do have an alternative solution: government officials should meet with religious officials and encourage them to teach environmental conservation to their congregations.

"Church and state, church and state!" I can already here the screams. No money, favors, or other incentives should be allowed to exchange hands, and the meetings should be completely visible, transparent, and able to be attended by the public. A panel of government officials, religious leaders from various faiths, and community leaders should meet to discuss various needs that exist in the community and how to address them. By recognizing the the legal system is not always the best way to alter people's behavior, leaders can open themselves to new solutions. If the necessary action does truly benefit the largest number of people, the leaders will jump on it. If it is simply a "special interest" that only protects a few, then the talks will fall apart into petty bickering over small details (see current U.S. politics and discussions over the budget for a good example).

I won't exclude the possibility that there still could be petty bickering. A Jew might well refuse to sit at a panel with an anti-Semite, but if the greater good would be served, both parties would likely cave to peer pressure, so long as the citizens kept up the pressure (a very key point - all social programs, religious or governmental, will be dead on arrival without pressure and cooperation from the public).

What would happen if it became a sin to not practice good environmental husbandry? There's plenty of precedent. The Bible's first commandment is to be fruitful and multiply. The second? "To replenish the earth" (KJV, Genesis 1:28). Not only that, but by encouraging environmental conservation through religion, no taxpayer would be forced to bear the burden of a government program that could criminalize survival.

People respond to incentives. While Bolivia has acknowledged that environmental conservation is a social need, enforcing such a need on a criminal basis will end up costing the government far too much for far too little gain. Instead, the government should recognize the impact of religious motivation and peer pressure and work with religious leaders to encourage people to preserve their resources.

After all, isn't one of the benefits of religion that we behave in the best interests of all? What greater interest does any human have than in the good husbandry of natural resources.