Vés al contingut principal

Configuració de les galetes

Fem servir galetes per assegurar les funcionalitats bàsiques del lloc web i per a millorar la teva experiència en línia. Pots configurar i acceptar l'ús de galetes, i modificar les teves opcions de consentiment en qualsevol moment.

Essencials

Preferències

Analítiques i estadístiques

Màrqueting

Tancar el debat

Quin és el resum o conclusions d'aquest debat?

❓ Brave Opening Question: Should soils be granted legal personhood so they can speak, through guardians, in democratic processes and courtrooms—just like rivers, corporations, or the State? Why or why not?

Avatar: Debat oficial Debat oficial

🌱 Contextualisation: Giving Voice to the Soil

In legal terms, ecosystems are often treated as passive backdrops to human activity—resources to be managed, exploited, or protected depending on prevailing interests. But what if we recognized ecosystems as subjects with their own rights?

The idea of granting legal personality to ecosystems is gaining traction across the globe. From rivers in New Zealand and Colombia to forests in Ecuador, some territories are beginning to acknowledge that ecosystems—like corporations or ships—can be treated as legal persons with rights and representation in court. This shift allows communities and guardians to advocate on behalf of ecosystems, not only in reactive environmental protection but in proactive justice.

In the context of SOILTRIBES, this invites us to rethink how we relate to soils, landscapes, and ecological systems: not as inert matter, but as living entities that sustain life and could—perhaps should—be represented in the decisions that shape them.

❓ Brave Opening Question Should soils be granted legal personhood so they can speak, through guardians, in democratic processes and courtrooms—just like rivers, corporations, or the State? Why or why not?

Here are two contrasting starter posts you can use to open the debate on the SOILTRIBES platform—one supportive and one skeptical. These can help spark thoughtful, diverse responses from the Community of Practice.

🟢 Post 1: Soil as a Subject of Rights (Pro-Personhood)

By: “Living Soils Advocate”

Soils are not just a resource. They are complex living ecosystems that breathe, evolve, and sustain all terrestrial life. Yet they have no voice in the decisions that affect them—from industrial agriculture to land sealing.

Granting soils legal personhood would allow them to be represented in court, with guardians speaking on their behalf—just like we do for children or rivers. It would shift our perspective from stewardship to mutual recognition, giving soils standing not as property, but as partners in planetary health.

In an era of climate collapse and biodiversity loss, legal innovation is not just symbolic—it’s urgent. The law is a living tool. Why not use it to protect the life beneath our feet?

🔴 Post 2: Rights of Nature or Legal Overreach? (Skeptical View)

By: “Pragmatic Policy Thinker”

The idea of granting legal personhood to ecosystems is conceptually fascinating, but practically risky. Legal personhood is a powerful and historically complex tool—it has served corporations well, but it’s also fraught with ambiguity and unintended consequences.

Who decides who represents the soil? What if one community wants to speak for it in one way, and another differently? How do we balance this with existing property laws, agriculture rights, or urban development?

Rather than adding symbolic legal status, why not strengthen existing environmental protections and democratic participation of affected communities? Legal personality might sound radical, but it could end up being confusing or counterproductive in practice.

Comentari

Confirmar

Si us plau, inicia la sessió

La contrasenya és massa curta.

Compartir