Spinoza believed in God, but it was not the God of what he called the narrative religions such as Judaism and Christianity nor did he see a difference between creation and creation. His God was coterminous with nature itself. I think he would see no difference between a right of any part of nature and a right of any other part of nature such as a human being. Certain human beings such as children or demented people cannot speak for themselves so attorneys are appointed to speak for them. Spinoza's God could manifest itself in a river as well as a human being.

However, I don't believe in Spinoza's God or any other kind of God. I wrote the above to point out that giving a river a right is consistent with a particular western religious view.

I do believe that our economy and well-being is supported by care for the environment. If that care can be furthered by giving natural features rights then I favour giving natural features rights.

All over the world and especially in the less
developed societies, the pressure of the human
population and its technologies is devastating
natural ecosystems. This pressure takes many
forms - urbanisation and highway construction;
transformation of virgin land into farmland;
chemical pollution of fresh water; dredging and
landfill in coastal areas; uncontrolled hunting
and poaching, especially African wildlife; deliberate
and accidental poisoning of wildlife with pesticides;
disruption of natural predator-prey relationships;
strangulation of millions of birds and fish with
discarded styrofoam pellets, plastic bags, and other
synthetic flotsam; dam construction and irrigation;
and massive deforestation.

To some observers, the destruction of life on our
planet as a result of human activity is a matter of
no particular consequence. To others, it represents the
height of human hubris in that we are making ourselves
the ultimate arbiters of what may survive and what may
be obliterated.

To me the breathtaking diversity of our planet has
evolved in a delicate and precarious balance over many
millions of years. Many of the plants, animals, rivers,
and our natural environment with which we share the
earth have been here a great deal longer than we have.

For a fleeting moment in planetary history, our technology
has given us domain over them. In awe, respect, and
humility, we might just let them be.

So yes, a river can have "rights".

Dear David,

«If that care can be furthered by giving natural features rights then I favour giving natural features rights.»

But "rights" always come hand-in-hand with obligations.

This holds even for non-humans: dogs for example have a right to be euthanased without pain, but if they keep biting humans, then the law demands that they must in fact be euthanased.

Are we then to legislate that natural features must always be benevolent to human society? Are we going to drag storms, killer-lightenings, earthquakes and stray rivers that caused flooding to court, then lock them up in prison?

Then what if those natural features attack one another? perhaps beavers who block rivers, rivers who wash away top-soils, blue-green algae who poison dolphins and the sun who steals water from lakes and dams? Oh, dragging the sun into a court-room would be quite a sight!

Yet if you can sue God, why not a river...?

http://www.berdichev.org/god_on_trial.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/restraining-order-against-god_us_572b9557e4b0bc9cb04611a2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuits_against_God

Foxy, "So yes, a river can have 'rights'".

How can passing redundant laws prevent offending?

What is needed is reasonable certainty of being caught and the knowledge that having been caught, the judge will give a suitable sentence to deter any recurrence of offending.

So the remedy lies in allocating the resources to policing and the public and their politicians supporting them, not trying to let favoured ones off with a slap on the wrist.

I happened to travel in a nice tram today. The difference between the old and the young was stark: for many of the second group had their dirty track shoes up on the seat in front and some of them left rubbish where they sat, after illegally consuming food on the tram. Yes the driver does monitor the cameras but they know s/he is limited by all sorts of regs and it isn't worth the aggro and paperwork.

In the well maintained parklands adjoining the beach two young women carefully folded their food wrappers and stuffed them into the varnished timber slat seats. The plastic bags had blown down the dunes. They probably considered themselves smart that they had let them go with perfect timing.

Maybe give 'rights' to the chairs, trams and the sand dunes?

So what is the remedy? More laws where laws already exist and more security cameras (there are many)? Or some plain clothes police to make arrests or give on the spot fines? If the miscreants were apprehended, the court would let them off and the ridiculous liberals would cry 'police State' or similar foolishness.

I reckon that it is far too easy to talk about 'big business' and 'government' doing 'something', but some of the really big pollution problems come from individuals who just don't care and know they can get away with it.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You wrote: "But "rights" always come hand-in-hand with obligations."

Babies have a right not to be harmed. What obligation does a baby have?

The following link explains why New Zealand is granting
rivers and forests the same rights as citizens:

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/sundayextra/new-zealand-granting-rivers-and-forests-same-rights-as-citizens/7816456