Name Institution Professor Date Should trees have rights? I concur with the writer that trees should have legal rights. I believe that trees are much essential in the daily life of a human being. For instance they help in the erosion and preventing cutting down of plantations will help realize the facts of trees having legal rights. Works Cited Hadzigeorgiou Yannis et al. "Teaching about the importance of trees: A study with young children." Environmental Education Research 17.4 (2011): 519-536. [...]
Hi everybody. It’s time for Discussion Forum # 3: Should trees have legal rights? It’s pretty well accepted in our society that if a drunk driver kills someone, then they have violated the law because they have taken away that person’s right to life. On the other hand, a person or a corporation could buy 20 square miles of forested land in Northern California or Southern Oregon and kill hundreds of redwood trees that have been alive for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. It’s obvious that our legal system protects human beings when their right to exist is threatened or taken away. What about other living creatures? Somewhat like unborn children, trees are living but vulnerable. Should someone stand up for them and protect their right to exist? It is said that we inherit three things from our ancestors: material possessions, genes, and ideas. Material possessions are for the most part of little long-term consequence because they will soon be gone; maybe not in our lifetime, but soon enough. Ideas and genes are more long-lasting, but more interestingly, genes and ideas are both mutable. Mutable means changeable; don’t genes and ideas change over time? Aren’t our genes worth protecting? I don’t mean only human genes, but the genes of every living thing. We can get lost in the preamble to our constitution “…that all men are created equal…” Are men, people, human beings the only things on earth “…endowed by our Creator”? So, if you think I am joking, let me repeat the question: Should trees have legal standing? Should they be protected and should their “property” like their soil, water, and air, be secured? Should they get “justice” if their parents or children are killed by someone? A tree obviously could not speak in court, a person would have to speak for them, but the question remains: should trees, and also other natural wonders, have rights? We all know Daniel Boone built log cabins and Native Americans hunted buffalo; that’s not the issue. Times were much simpler then. Trees are good example for exploring these new ideas, but we could include non-living wonders of nature like the clean white sands of Gulf Shores, Alabama, or the beautiful beaches around Santa Barbara. Should trees and other natural objects have rights? Write a couple of paragraphs. Post them. Respond to another posting that really made you react.