Polly Higgins stated that the narrative of the environment guardians must follow the path of Claim, Name and Frame. Firstly, claim the right to decide what is right or wrong. Also claim the right to decide over others property. Secondly, name the narrative and the terminology used in debates. Thirdly, frame the world by law. All very orwellian, of course, in the name of intrinsicality.
Humans and property are nonsensical words in this narrative. They want the power. I asked if affectional value for one’s own property would not qualify for being noted on the right side of her diagram? As a thing of the heart. But of course the lawyer had a domination game answer prepared for that question. Anything with value or money goes to the left side of the chart. The right side deals with the rights of nature. The rights of man are beside the point in this “reasoning”.
Here, it may be beneficial to pause and introduce the method of ADI. It is a simple formula for finding out ways to move negotiations forward. ADI stands for Agree, Disagree and Irrelevant. Things we agree on, we need not discuss further. Things that by both parties are deemed irrelevant for the question at hand, will need no further scrutiny. Left to resolve is only what we truly disagree on.
The problem with the intrisicalist ideology is that we (anthropocentrics, as most of us are) can not agree with them on what is irrelevant. Consequently we disagree on everything. There is really no basis for debate or negotiations. We belong to different paradigms.
At one time at the lecture one of the organizers popped out of his chair to give an exmaple pertaining to the risk of salt water flowing into the lake Mälaren with rising sea levels. When I pointed out that there is no such risk since the Swedish land mass is still rising from being depressed by the last ice age ice sheet at an average speed of 5-10 mm/year and the sea is rising at best by 1 mm/year. He murmured that there may be different opinions about that. Opinions? Someone in the audience shouted “We don’t want besserwissers (know it all’s) here!” Facts about nature are considered opinions by the “hearty” intrinsicalists.
According to PH, paradigm changes occur in 30-40 years cycles. I would say policy changes about that often, paradigms not so frequently. The anthropocentric paradigm has been the norm since mankind started to walk this Earth. She claims to have started such a paradigm change with the push for an ecocide law, but with the help of internet she’s hopeful the cycle will be shorter this time.
During the lecture it becomes clear that the intrinsicalists believe that things get progressively worse. PH has not listened to Hans Rosling, for example. He has concrete facts to show that things are getting better. Whether you measure poverty, education, starvation, womens rights, longevity, polution or anything else, things are improving.
PH in her lecture gave references to GMO, fossil fuel, fracking, sea level rise, melting ice caps, bending and stretching the truth. When in the intermission I asked her why she mentioned climate change as an example of environment detorioration, when climate change still is only an unproven hypothesis, she replied correctly that she had not mentioned climate change. The lawyer had very slyly and deliberately mentioned effects that by the IPCC are given as consequences of climate change, thereby instilling the notion in the listeners minds that she was talking about climate change. Mission accomplished, without actually lying. Or “merely” lying by omission.
The audience was, as I mentioned earlier, mostly intrinsicalists, they called for a New World Order, promoting the dictatorship of an ignorant majority. In fact all PH wanted, was 83 votes in the UN General Assembly to establish a criminal law making it illegal for humans to affect nature. That is the bid for tyranny by a ignorant minority.
Stretching ecocide to include something named cultural ecocide, as PH said would be the preferred next step, only boils down to the lunatics taking over the asylum.