Right to exist
Nature has rights and the rights of Nature are easy to understand and teach
Modern civilization treats Nature as a resource to be exploited by humans, as if everything on the planet was created for human consumption. Modern economic theories treat Nature as if it were not a factor at all in the economy as if all of the materials people use appeared from… where? Fact is, everything people have invented was invented from the raw materials that Nature provided.
Right to exist in Kemëntsah, Wonaan, Embera, and Cofán Indigenous languages.
“You’re not allowed to call them dinosaurs any more,’ said Yo-less. ‘It’s speciesist. You have to call them pre-petroleum persons.”
The concept that Nature was created in order to serve humans is extreme hubris. Even if it were true, keeping Nature’s vital cycles intact is essential for human existence. After all, humans are part of Nature.
While debates rage about whether a human zygote has the right to life and corporations are granted personhood, the vast majority of animals and other living beings have no rights before the law. As a result, human-made mass now exceeds all living biomass on the planet. In other words, humans have replaced the vast majority of living beings on the planet with artificial, inanimate objects.
In fact, as it turns out, we aren’t as different from bananas as we’d like to think (even if you don’t count the fact that the banana becomes part of you once you eat it).
Nature’s right to exist in science
An organism is any living entity that displays the characteristics of life (responding to external stimulus, maintaining homeostasis, reproducing, etc. Even the simplest life forms, like bacteria, fulfill these criteria, while non-living things do not. Obviously many organisms compete with each other for primacy in the food chain and for resources, but does one organism have more intrinsic value than the other? Logic would dictate humans have no more intrinsic value than other species. And we are just as susceptible to the natural consequences of overeating, outgrowing, or failing to replenish our food supplies.
There is a growing legal and philosophical movement advocating for the "rights of nature," which seeks to grant ecosystems intrinsic legal rights, similar to human rights. This idea posits that nature, as a living system, should have the right to exist, maintain its life cycles, and regenerate without undue human interference. The concept draws from both indigenous traditions and environmental ethics, emphasizing an ecocentric view where ecosystems have inherent value beyond their utility to humans.
The modern precedent for the legal recognition of nature's rights began gaining traction in Ecuador’s 2008 Constitution, which acknowledges the rights of ecosystems, known as "Pachamama," to exist and flourish. Similar developments have occurred in New Zealand, where the Whanganui River and the Te Urewera forest were granted legal personhood. Courts in Colombia and India have also recognized rivers and other ecosystems as legal entities with specific rights to protection and restoration.
Christopher Stone's influential 1972 essay, Should Trees Have Standing?, provided an early theoretical framework for these legal advancements. His work argued that natural entities, like forests or rivers, should have legal standing to be represented in court through guardians. These ideas, initially seen as radical, have since become part of a broader environmental justice movement that seeks to address biodiversity loss, climate change, and environmental degradation by challenging anthropocentric legal frameworks.
The movement has gained momentum globally, with countries like Bolivia, Bangladesh, and Mexico integrating these principles into their legal frameworks. Indigenous philosophies play a key role in the concept, emphasizing a holistic relationship between humans and nature. However, the practical implementation of these rights faces challenges, including legal enforcement and balancing human interests with ecosystem protection.
The rights of nature movement represents a shift toward recognizing the intrinsic value of ecosystems, reinforcing efforts to protect the environment in the face of ongoing ecological crises like deforestation and climate change. The philosophy underpins the notion that ecosystems should not merely be seen as resources for human use but as entities deserving protection for their own sake and the broader ecological balance they support
Nature’s right to exist in natural law
“If Heaven and Earth are unable to persist, how could man?”
Nature’s right to exist is self-evident.
Nature and natural beings have the right to exist, not because of their usefulness to humans, but simply because they are. Mountains, rivers, plants and animals have intrinsic rights to exist, just as humans have the right to exist.
Of course, Nature is not static. All beings are born, live, and die. Likewise, mountains, rivers and even continents are constantly changing. And at the same time, we can say that Nature has the intrinsic right to exist, even as it changes through its own cycles.
While it is necessary for life to consume other living beings, and it’s necessary to use planetary resources for building homes and other life-supporting constructs, all of these resources come from the Natural world.
Respecting Nature’s right to exist doesn’t mean that we don’t use any resources from Nature. It does mean that we treat those resources with respect when we do use them for our survival, and that we don’t take a frivolous attitude towards destroying living and non-living natural beings.
Here are some examples of how Nature’s right to exist has been violated, and the natural consequences.
Forests and endangered species: Despite failure to meet environmental standards and razing critical habitat a logging company in Australia won a controversial court case that means continued biodiversity loss on the continent.
Oil spills: Oil company Shell won a major lawsuit against 457 communities and 27,800 individuals who continue to suffer from long-term damage to land and waterways.
Destruction of water supplies: Exploiting the land for lithium mining in Chile is destroying the rivers and leaving people and animals without water.
In 2024, biodiversity loss remains a critical global issue, with wildlife populations experiencing alarming declines. According to the World Wildlife Fund’s (WWF) 2024 Living Planet Report, vertebrate populations have decreased by an average of 73% since 1970. Latin America, in particular, faces a severe crisis, with wildlife populations in the region plummeting by 94% on average. These trends illustrate the fragility of ecosystems globally, bringing many closer to collapse due to deforestation, climate change, and other human activities.
This biodiversity crisis has serious natural consequences. The degradation of ecosystems compromises food security, worsens climate instability, and threatens clean water supplies. For example, the continued deforestation of the Amazon—one of the most vital rainforests—risks reaching a tipping point, potentially transforming the area from forest into savannah. The decline of wildlife populations also disrupts pollination, soil health, and water cycles, which are essential for sustainable agriculture and human well-being.
Nature’s right to exist in human law
Addressing biodiversity loss is urgent. Because violations of Nature’s right to exist are causing tremendous damage to the planet.
Conservation efforts and global frameworks like the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) are pushing for large-scale ecosystem restoration by 2030. However, the success of these efforts depends on substantial investments, policy changes, and global cooperation, especially as high consumption levels in developed nations continue to drive habitat destruction in biodiversity-rich regions.
It is clear that these efforts will not succeed unless we learn to recognise the rights of other species in human laws. For now, human corporations have rights, but in most cases, other species don’t.
It is not clear why corporations should have a right to exist. After all, if a company closes, investors will find other investments and workers will find other work. The properties will find other owners. Nothing is truly destroyed when a company goes out of business.
Yet, in many jurisdictions, companies are recognized as legal entities with rights. In fact, the World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) is an institution designed explicitly to defend corporate rights above human rights and above the rights of independent nation-states and democratically elected governments.
Defense of corporate rights has become so extreme that it’s even been referred to as “Litigation Terrorism”. Typically, this type of lawsuit involves high-stakes natural resources. In other words, corporate “personhood” rights and investor’s rights to a profit have been prioritized over Nature’s Right to Exist and people’s rights to control how their nation’s resources are used.
As it turns out, most people want to keep their cultures and Nature intact. Simply giving people the right to protect Nature in their areas is often enough to ensure Nature’s Right to Exist. Unfortunately, this is not the default situation.
However change is coming.
Nonhuman Rights Project: This organization has pioneered legal efforts to secure personhood for animals like chimpanzees and elephants. Their advocacy, based on habeas corpus petitions, aims to challenge the detention of animals in captivity. One well-known case involved Happy, an elephant at the Bronx Zoo, where the court acknowledged the importance of the animal’s autonomy and liberty, although it did not grant full personhood rights.
Estrellita Case in Ecuador: In a unique precedent, Ecuador’s Constitutional Court applied the "Rights of Nature" framework to an individual animal. Estrellita, a woolly monkey kept as a pet, was moved to a zoo by authorities, and the court's decision emphasized not only the welfare of the animal but also the interconnectedness between animal rights and ecosystem health. Ecuador has enshrined Rights of Nature in its constitution, recognizing the legal personhood of ecosystems and setting a precedent for similar cases involving animals.
Rights of Ecosystems: Several ecosystems, such as rivers, have been granted legal personhood to protect them from exploitation. Examples include the Atrato River in Colombia and all rivers in Bangladesh. These legal actions enable guardians to represent the ecosystems in court, ensuring their right to exist and flourish without human interference.
These cases reflect a broader movement that shifts from treating animals and ecosystems as mere property toward recognizing their intrinsic rights and autonomy. Though still evolving, such initiatives illustrate a growing awareness of ethical responsibilities toward nonhuman life and natural systems.
Nature’s right to exist in spiritual law
Indigenous cultures and spiritual traditions around the world often uphold a worldview that recognizes the intrinsic value of all living beings and promotes the idea that humans, animals, plants, and ecosystems coexist within a web of interdependence.
Native American worldviews often emphasize that animals and humans share a kinship, reflected in ceremonies, stories, and practices such as totem animals. The Lakota people refer to all beings as "Mitákuye Oyás’in" (meaning “All My Relations”), expressing the belief that all entities, including animals and rocks, deserve respect.
Australian Aboriginal traditions maintain that humans are not superior to animals or plants. The Dreaming, a complex worldview, teaches that humans are custodians, not owners, of the land and that animals and landscapes have spirits that must be honored.
Amazonian Indigenous cultures (e.g., the Achuar or Yanomami) practice sustainable hunting and agriculture, with rituals asking permission from animal spirits before hunting and offering gratitude after. This practice ensures the balance between species.
Maori culture in New Zealand emphasizes the concept of kaitiakitanga, or guardianship, recognizing that humans are caretakers of the natural world. They believe that plants and animals, including native species like the kiwi bird, have the right to thrive and be protected.
Andean Indigenous groups (like the Quechua and Aymara) revere Pachamama (Mother Earth) as a living being who must be respected to maintain harmony. They believe mountains, rivers, and forests have spirits.
In India, the Bishnoi people practice strict vegetarianism and protect wildlife. They famously protested to protect trees by hugging them—an event that inspired the modern environmental Chipko movement.
The African Ubuntu philosophy, which emphasizes that well-being arises from mutual respect and coexistence. The Zulu saying, “Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu” (a person is a person through other persons), reflects this interconnectedness, extending even to animals and plants.
Sami reindeer herders in northern Europe treat animals and land with reverence, acknowledging that nature provides for them but must not be exploited.
In conclusion, Nature’s right to exist
Nature’s right to exist is increasingly being recognized by courts and citizens. Creating a healthy environment for all requires respect for all of Nature’s inhabitants as intrinsically valuable, regardless of their “usefulness” in human terms.
In many indigenous cultures, the right of all living beings to exist is embedded in a worldview that emphasizes respect, reciprocity, and responsibility. Life is seen not as hierarchical but as a dynamic network of relationships in which each being plays a role. This perspective contrasts with modern anthropocentric views, offering profound insights into sustainability, conservation, and ethics.
🌍 We call for Nature’s right to respect to be included in the Rights of Nature 🌏
Please amplify this initiative by sharing the message on our unbranded social channels.
For Nature. With ❤️.
