Carter Dillard (Animal Legal Defense Fund
(ALDF)), This Dish is
Veg
February 2013
It would be other species, living and flourishing in their habitats, all around us in an interconnected system. This view of earth is no fantasy – if biodiversity can be protected, our birthrates continue to decline, and we continue to urbanize, this planet will look very much like that: city-states awash in a sea of nature
Thinking about our first or “primary” human right is actually a new way
of thinking about how to protect the environment, and how to visualize what
our planet ought to look like.
When we think about the idea of being free, we usually think about the
freedom to act, or the right to do what we want without others interfering.
But freedom also means the right not to be acted upon and to be free from
other people, in other words, to be let alone. Unless we have some special
obligation, like being the parent of a child, we are generally free to get
away from other people and the influence they would otherwise have over us.
When it comes to particular countries and governments, which are really just
collections of individual people, unless we have committed a crime or done
something unusual, we also have a right to leave and be free of them. For
example, we are free to leave the United States, and forcing people in the
former Soviet Union to live behind the Iron Curtain violated their human
rights. We should not be forced to submit to any other person’s influence,
or collection of persons’ influence, against our will.
Because we have the right to leave any person and any country, it follows
that we have the right to leave every person and every country. One implies
the other. If you were to leave every country on earth until you got to the
last country, you should be able to leave that one as well.
How do we do that? First, we have to see the earth as actually made up of
two worlds – the human and the “nonhuman,” or those species other than
humans. Countries are political entities – they are based on the
organization of human power and influence. Leaving every country on earth
does not mean having to fly to the moon; it means leaving, as best one can,
human power and influence and entering the nonhuman world - what we
generally call wilderness. The nonhuman world is, by definition , comprised
of those places in the world occupied by species other than humans living in
their natural habitats.
Keep in mind that nonhumans don’t live in countries or organize into systems
of rights the way we do. So the earth divided into human and nonhuman worlds
would look something like the earth did for most of human civilization –
limited human societies surrounded by a sea of relatively complete
biodiversity and wilderness. It would be other species, living and
flourishing in their habitats, all around us in an interconnected system.
This view of earth is no fantasy – if biodiversity can be protected, our
birthrates continue to decline, and we continue to urbanize, this planet
will look very much like that: city-states awash in a sea of nature.
But this is the point: For us to be free, for it to remain possible to be
free of every person and country on earth, the nonhuman world must be
protected and allowed to flourish. Without it we would remain locked in that
last country on earth, permanently subjected to others’ influence, or as one
senator said in passing the Wilderness Act of 1964, “without wilderness this
country will become a cage.” Because we have a right to leave all others and
their influence, or the “cages” we create for each other, the nonhuman world
must remain and flourish. It is a necessary condition for freedom to
actually mean something.
Why call this right to be free from others the “primary right?” Rights are
about other people, and your relationships with them. Given that, the
primary right, or the first thing that is decided in any systems of rights,
is whether you relate to or are influenced by other people at all. The first
thing about any system of rights that is decided is whether you are even
part of it. People in the Soviet Union would not have had to worry about the
lack of human rights in that system if they could have simply gotten away.
How does thinking about the environment in terms of the primary right change
things? First, it gives us a theoretical baseline, a way of seeing what our
planet ought to look like. This is something most environmentalists have not
been able to agree on. Second, it changes the basic thinking in
environmentalism: the focus should be on freedom, not well-being. Third,
protecting the nonhuman world because it ensures the very possibility of
human freedom is different than protecting nature for its own sake. Those
most responsible for harming the nonhuman world have gone unpunished because
humans are less apt to act until we know we have something to lose. Thinking
about our primary right shows us that we are losing something right now,
that those most responsible for destroying the nonhuman world are violating
our right to be free.
If we value freedom we value nature, or the nonhuman world, because it makes
the act of consenting to others’ influence possible. Protecting the
environment is not about making a world dominated by humans safe, healthy,
and sustainable – a pleasant place for humans to live. It is about restoring
the nonhuman world around us as best we can so that freedom actually means
something.
Carter Dillard is the Director of Litigation at the Animal Legal Defense
Fund, and was recently a Visiting Scholar at Emory University School of Law.
He was previously appointed under the Honors Program to the U.S. Department
of Justice, served as a legal advisor to the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, in the National Security Law Division, and taught on the faculty
of Loyola University New Orleans, College of Law, as a Westerfield Fellow.
He holds a B.A. from Boston College, a J.D., Order of the Coif and with
honors, from Emory University, and an LL.M. from New York University.
Return to Animal Rights Articles