Human Rights and the Ecological Imperative

Part Two

When the founding fathers set out to write a Constitution, and subsequently a Bill of Rights, their foremost thoughts were about righting the wrongs they were suffering under British rule.

Among the wise things they did was to leave their works open-ended. The Constitution was adopted in 1789 and the first ten amendments (Bill of Rights) were ratified in 1791. Subsequently new amendments were added. The major ones that affected human rights were, (1) slavery was abolished in 1865, (2) voting rights for blacks were added in 1870, (3) voting rights for women were added in 1920, and (4) poll tax was eliminated in 1964. Altogether 26 amendments were added within its 200-year anniversary.

It is now 213 years since our original rights were officially birthed. We are facing our own challenges in this new century; some looking back to repair mistakes and some looking forward to anticipate new challenges. We are faced today with human rights questions of global scale ranging from population and consumption disparities to economic and religious fundamentalism.

We are also faced with major societal problems ranging from plagues and global warming to nuclear war. And my guess is we do not have the luxury of 200 years to successfully resolve the most pressing ones.

Our aim should be to set the stage upon which each individual can act out his/her role with the greatest possible latitude for unique expression and meaningfulness, while allowing for similar actions of fellow humans. Such a setting calls for many things. It calls for freedom to think, speak, create, worship and otherwise act out one’s unique destiny, and it calls for restraints that will halt infringement against same and reduce destructive friction between individuals.

These individual rights can be summed up, I think, with the following statement: Each individual has the exclusive right to use his/her own faculties, both physical and mental, so long as the exercise of this right does not critically infringe upon or limit the equal right of others, the living and those yet to come. This statement would encompass our historic rights of speech, religion, privacy, association, assembly and travel, while conversely protecting against enslavement, murder, rape, torture and spurious imprisonment. Forced migration, as well as forced labor, are infringements upon and individual’s exclusive rights and are equally degrading.

This statement is not just a warmed over golden rule, but a concise pronouncement upon which all individual rights can be weighed. The thought is not new; it is indeed the basis of all historic pronouncements on human rights. The key word is “infringement.” We are not here concerned with personal perversity or moral outrage, i.e., infringements of others’ sensibilities, but upon the actual limitation, abuse or curtailment of others’ equal rights through the exercise of one’s own rights.

Men and women have a mutual right to mate, to procreate and to assume responsibility to nurture, rear, protect and educate their offspring, and to care for their disabled, sick and aged. Extended families, blood related or not, have a right to share each other’s lives. Same gender couples also have this right. All have a right to adopt children or others in need. These rights and responsibilities hold true so long as their exercise does not infringe on the exclusive, mutual, use or shared rights of others.

Corollary (1): communities, regions and nations may, because of defaults or through democratic process, agree to assume some or all of these responsibilities.

These mutual responsibilities absorbed by government in developed nations have been a primary factor in stabilizing population growth. The second factor has been an equitable distribution of services/incomes. Both factors have also helped minimize family defaults. In most poor countries this safety net is missing. Large families replace it. This disparity between rich and poor nations, between big consumers and big populations is a major global problem.

Corollary (2): with the advent of modern medical science we have discovered multiple new ways to conceive. What they all have in common is an egg and sperm. Those who furnish these basics still have primary responsibility as to their use.

Corollary (3): when government assumes mutual rights and responsibilities it thereby assumes the responsibility to regulate population growth and in-migrations: thus ‘the right of choice’ and ‘the right to life’ positions need to be subordinated to the greater good of the community.

In an information age we, as a global society, require equal and unrestricted access to information as well as resources so that we, individually and collectively, will not just survive or muddle through but will make a success of the human race. Any formulation of rights and responsibilities that overlooks or fails to justly resolve these questions of “equitable use” will in turn abrogate men’s and women’s other rights.

These rights and responsibilities may be stated in fairly simple terms, though the mechanics for realization are formidable. All individuals have an equal right to the use of their mutual life-sustaining physical and informational/cultural worlds, so long as the exercise of this right does not infringe upon or limit the equal use rights of others, or infringe upon the exclusive and mutual rights of others.

Conversely, all individuals share an equal responsibility to protect, maintain and enhance their shared worlds for themselves, their progeny and for all other living things. And this corollary: any individual or group of freely associating individuals shall have the right to provide and/or receive specialized services including conversions utilizing a limited share of available resources, so long as these services do not infringe or otherwise frustrate the “equal use right.”

These services alone constitute property, and they are transient. Therefore the extent, content and otherwise nature of these services shall be qualified and controlled by the current, collective wisdom of communities, regions and countries wherein the services occur, and in consort with a world organization and a comprehensive universal bill of rights.

Those of us who presently share the life-sustaining habitat we call earth have that need in common. We, collectively or separately, must not destroy it or privatize it. Destroying it we destroy ourselves. Privatizing it we destroy many for a few. But we have no right proclaimed or spirit-given to any right unless we ourselves take responsibility to protect and enhance it. And not just for today nor just for ourselves.

The corollary speaks to receiving or providing services. It proclaims that everyone has the option of providing and/or receiving services. It states that no individual or group may have a monopoly of a given resource and that the community, region or country has a right and responsibility to regulate these services utilizing the best information currently available. It does not preclude the right of government to provide services, for government ostensibly represents a group of freely associating individuals.

While labor and management are often in opposition on issues, their mutual goal is to provide good services; they are “freely associating individuals.” Thus labor has every right to organize and bargain, management every reason to negotiate and government the need to establish equitable guidelines.

We do not “create” or “produce” things from nature, we convert various elements from it for our needs or we merely use nature’s own dynamics to our advantage. We provide services for one another. We may choose to do this collectively through our government or privately through free associations of individuals, groups or businesses.

We abhor a monopoly because it eliminates competition and because it discourages creativity. In a word, it is not responsive to the whole community. We therefore limit all services and their access to resources.

We also define services so that they do not infringe on every individual’s use rights; we make them subservient to the control of all the people. This then places both the right and the responsibility on everyone. Is there a conflict of ownership here? No, no one owns the bio or geo sphere but everyone has rights and responsibility related to its usage such that its dynamics are not impaired.

Particular individuals provide or receive particular services. They are paid to provide or they pay to receive these services. For such period as services are held and not exchanged they are owned. Ownership is the embodiment of information and labor. Tools, and other artifacts, so long as they are usable, are property; their disposal or recyclability are responsibilities of ownership. Copyrights and patents are property for prescribed periods becoming public beyond these periods. Ownership is a verb.

Where non-renewable resources such as fuels become depleted, society must find alternates or switch to renewables. If either types are destructive to the environment, like fossil fuels, use rights will be violated. Biological extinctions must be included, and here there are no alternatives.

The full extent of these rights and responsibilities must today be enlarged to include all countries. This is true because the ramifications of local acts resonate worldwide. §

Next Month — Part Three
Shared Rights and Responsibilities: Government