[permaculture-oceania] Re: the 'rights-based' approach

Mon Aug 14 00:27:06 EST 2006

In their 2004 Hodder publication "Going Native", eminent conservation 
biologist Michael Archer and feature journalist Bob Beale
have the following to say in Chapter 6 pp 139-153 'The Rights and 
Wrongs of Roos':

Firstly they remind us that humankind is just another animal in the web 
of life who somewhere along the evolution track invented the fence and 
other barriers like roads which have the effect of dividing the surface 
of the earth into ever-decreasing, "isolated bits of life that rip at 
the integrity of the web ..."

"We argue that the notion of animal (read: human) rights is in fact 
dangerous to the future of biodiversity.  It is yet another type of 
fence that creates an unnatural rationale for limiting how far humans 
can value, integrate with and use the natural world, further widening 
the gap between humans and nature and further endangering the future of 
both.  As this gap widens, the fences become higher, and the future for 
what's on both sides falls away.  The right way forward - the only way 
to guarantee sustainability - is to pull down those fences and learn 
once again how to live with, depend on and value the system of which we 
are a natural part."

They go on to talk about the problems with 'conservation as usual' 
first describing the image of the modern naturalist who sets off into 
the bush equipped with something like steel-capped boots, a backpack, 
camping gear, a multitude of tools for observing and dissecting nature, 
food, water, a change of undies and other items deemed necessary for 
surviving the experience.  They then compare this to indigenous humans 
who 'survived' living in the Australian bush for something like 50,000 
years without any backpacks but with completely unconditional love and 
respect for the land, water, plants, other animals and the ecosystems 
of which they were a natural part.  This is a prime example of how 
humankind's dependence upon and use of other animals can lead to the 
long term conservation of both.

I tend to agree with Mr Fukuoka when he says that "nature is 
unknowable", certainly not by modern humans anyway.  If you don't know 
something (include self), you can't even begin to understand it and the 
concept of animal (including human) rights seems to be something of a 
furphy.

Knowing the scientific name of something doesn't mean you *know* it, 
understanding something comes only after years of observation and 
practice.  The monocultural mind appears to have made lots of people 
believe that you can take one animal out of the ecosystem and elevate 
it above all the others, classify it top of the food chain and bestow 
'rights' upon it to the exclusion (read: ignorance) of all the others 
and their own complex relationships, which makes the needs of the whole 
ecosystem greater than those of any individual part of it, in my view.  
I agree with Rowe that all have basic rights to clean air, water and 
natural food.

Messrs Archer & Beale also point out:  "While it is now a 
well-articulated philosophical view, animal (read: human) rights is an 
unnatural intellectual construct that has no counterpart in the real 
world of healthy, functioning ecosystems.  Contrast it with what 
happens in the real world of animals: a grasshopper fat from the flesh 
of plants, is impaled by spider fangs that pump in organ-dissolving 
digestive juices while its eight eyes are scoured from beneath by the 
larvae of parasitic wasps soon to erupt through its still-living head; 
an injured wallaby is dissected alive by the slavering jaws of 
Tasmanian devils; and killer whales and sharks chomp chunks of living 
flesh from aged whales and seals too slow to evade them.  Nature 
embraces ruin with complete disregard for the welfare of her creations, 
green or furred, microscopic or colossal.  The webs of life are 
mindlessly amoral."

Scarier than fiction, hey, Going Native is a great read, much better 
than watching the other real world on tv where humankind is running 
around blowing themselves and each other to smithereens.

Robyn W

On Friday, August 11, 2006, at 12:00 pm, 
permaculture-oceania-request at lists.cat.org.au wrote:
> ------------------------------
> Subject: Re: [permaculture-oceania] the 'rights-based' approach'
>
> Dear Steve
>
> I agree entirely and wonder if you and would mind if I forward your 
> response on the Melbourne Gaiavic list where we have had a few 
> discussions around the suggestion that other species may have 'rights' 
> too, or that by giving humans basic needs, we are depriving other 
> species of theirs.
>
> cheers
> Di

>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: David Arnold
>   To: permaculture-oceania at lists.cat.org.au
>   Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 11:33 PM
>   Subject: [permaculture-oceania] the 'rights-based' approach'
>
>
>   Generally I find talk of "rights" a bit self-righteous.
>
>
>   I think we all are going to need to be more and more flexible and 
> accommodating of each other, less individualistic, and think in terms 
> of trying to meet people's basic needs, rather than rights.
>
>
>   And I agree that clean water, air, uncontaminated soils etc. 
> [access] to non
>> genetically modified food are basic needs.
>
>
>  Regards,
> David Arnold

Steve wrote:
>
>> Dear Rowe and others,
>>
>> Can I invite responses on the general issue of whether humans have
>> 'rights' at all?
>>
>> Within the Humanitarian industry, the 'rights-based approach' is now
>> very popular - it takes as its basis the concept that all humans, just
>> by being born, have endowed on them certain rights (such as to space,
>> water, calorific intake, etc)... Seems fair enough - especially as it
>> arose out of a desire to give dignity to people suffering 'natural'
>> disasters or who had been born into desperate situations in developing
>> countries... moving them from a disempowered role as 'beneficiaries'
>> of the generousity of the wealthy to a position where they have a
>> 'right' to those things they are currently missing.  The rights-based
>> approach seems to assume that there is an unlimited pool of resources
>> to supply that which is the 'right' of all.
>>
>> In what sense can humans have rights if the energy/resources/etc
>> required to deliver those rights exceeds the capacity of the planet to
>> deliver them? (I completely concede that most resources are terribly
>> inequitably distributed, but even allowing for that, might not the
>> limits to growth impact on the limits to rights?
>>
>> Also, if humans have rights, do other species have rights?  The
>> rights-based approach seems inherently specist - no one in the
>> humanitarian industry seems interested in discussions about whether
>> whales, caribou or date palms have rights... they are too busy saving
>> humans.  Fair enough - that's their job... but if they are going to
>> get philosophical, shouldn't their  basic premise be well
>> thought-through?  Anyone who can send this question to Peter Singer is
>> welcome to do so!
>>
>> warm regards,
>>
>> Steve
>> (currently working for a large humanitarian NGO)
>>
Rosemary Morrow wrote:
>> I remember having a discussion about ethics in a PDC group once, and I
>> was a bit perplexed.   Later I was talking to Bill Mollison and asked
>> what he thought about this,  and I appreciated his response because of
>> its clarity:
>>
>> "Permaculture is about tangibles"

>>
>> I think this is a useful guide to not adding new items.  Also almost
>> everything people want to add is subsumed under the ethics.  Although
>> I was just thinking that we have principles, strategies and techniques
>> for Care for the Earth, and distribute surplus, and reduce
>> consumption, we really dont have very many for Care for People.   I
>> have added a chapter on Permaculture at Work, with help from Margot
>> Turner, and it adds such things as
>>
>> Value people for their differences,
>>
>> and then uses many of the principles at work such as co-operate don't
>> compete.
>>
>> I have also been thinking that the design of permaculture for water or
>> soils, actually enables some extra human rights which will be required
>> this century such as the:
>>
>> Right to clean water, air, uncontaminated soils etc.  Right to non
>> genetically modified food
>>
>> I could see these being included in any Bill or Charter of Human
>> Rights which aims to meet the needs of the future.
>>
>> I guess you will take some of these ideas further.
>>
>> Warmly,
>>
>> Rowe Morrow
>
Penny Ferguson wrote:
>
>   David wrote.
>   Generally I find talk of "rights" a bit self-righteous.
>
>   What is glaringly obvious is that there is a lot of talk about 
> rights, but hardly any about responsibility - not in the same breath, 
> and not from the most outspoken 'rights' people.
>
>   To me the two are a pair and should not be separated.
>
>   P Ferguson
>   Illawarra NSW
> -------------

CONTACT DETAILS:

Robyn Williamson
Permaculture Design Consultant
Urban Horticulturist
Local Seed Network Coordinator
NORTH WESTERN SYDNEY COMMUNITY SEED SAVERS
mobile:  0409 151 435
ph/fx:  (612) 9629 3560
http://www.seedsavers.net
http://www.communityfoods.org.au
http://www.communitygarden.org.au
http://www.baulkhamhills.nsw.gov.au/Bidjiwong

I think we risk becoming the best informed society that has ever died of
ignorance. *-Reuben Blades*