Sounds like the United Nations has a lot in common with the Stupid State - specifically the Stupid City - San Francisco. Must get this two groups together. They would make Charlie Sheen look normal.

Time for the United States to defund and unjoin the United Nations.

A world, such as Earth, is a whole, seemingly.

A person, such as you, is a whole, seemingly.

An organism, such as a jellyfish, is a whole, seemingly.

A nation, such as Bolivia, tries to seem like a seeming whole; namely, it tries to say and do things like a person.

"Let them have rights," say we. Let them have equal dignity. Each person, planet, organism, nation.

But does not the cosmos have greater dignity than any piece of it? More than any of the "whole-like" pieces of it?

And does not the limitless(?) whole of the cosmos' configurations past and present, have greater dignity yet?

And is the space outside of any seeming whole but inside the whole whole without any dignity? If one piece/instance of the whole whole is to have dignity, why should pieces of "nothing"(i.e., those pieces of the whole whole that do not at all seem to be wholes) not have theirs?

Let us imagine that all that is and has been and will be were graphed into cubic inches and into "cubic instances" of one second each. Let us accord each of these space-time cubic pieces its equal dignity.

Or do we only grant dignity to wholes, and really, only to the seeming ones? If so, humans are evidently a disease to the seeming whole that is Earth, or at least to the Earth since its production of the process known as "life." We conceivably might kill all the Earth's "life," including probably us, resulting in a dignity-less Earth. So the character in 12 Monkeys was right. To be totally ecological is to be for a totally egalitarian genocide, for wiping out the one species that threatens to kill all the others. (There's basic state-of-nature logic/"justice" in that, in that preemptive killing of the likely murderer, so long as some nobly-suicidal humans can imagine themselves as acting on behalf of the nonhuman species the way the liberty-loving Lockeans made the imaginary leap of becoming spokespersons for the abstract individual.)

But did not the Earth have dignity prior to its having life? Will it not have it afterwards? If we held it didn't/won't, we would be daring to say that the moons of Jupiter do not have rights, and that we would be open, in theory, to a corporation obliterating one for the sake of plentiful gravel.

No, no, we say, that would be wrong! Even the lifeless planets must be protected. Everything must stay as it is, or more strictly, as it will develop subject to only nonhuman processes. We must not destroy or much alter a moon for our sake, a desert for our sake, a tundra for our sake, a virus for our sake, and not even a comet heading right towards us for our sake.

Unless, of course, we think persons somehow have more dignity, more claim on morality, than space rocks and viruses. Unless we think "our" "world" (and maybe a few others) has more dignity to it than 99.999999...ad infinitum...% of the real world, which is nothingness sparsely speckled with atomic infernos and freezing rocks. From the imagined perspective of What Is Normally The Case (a no less imaginary perspective than that of "The Earth") our little speck of space-time is rather grotesquely out of step with the whole whole, continually breeding these weird pieces that seem determined to seem to be wholes, and even one sort of piece-things that can SPEAK of things as wholes, and also as having dignity or not.

The "somehow" boils down to this: we cannot think, at least not in any purely arbitrary, illusory, and desire-driven way, that each human person has more dignity than other things or organisms, and that the (or each?) life-and-personal-consciousness-developing planet has more importance than the dead ones,than the endless patches of black nothingness, unless we think, despite what might be said by a Seattle school (see the earlier post), a United Nations proposition, or a Bolivian constitution, that something unique happened on a day some of us named Easter, and on another named Christmas. Maybe what those persons who named those days thought/think does not have all the details correct, but the basics of what they think must be if any of us are to claim, for our own self or anyone's, more dignity than nothingness.

Because unless Easter is true, reality looks like this: the piece called "a" "crystal" grows larger, and the piece called "a" "human person" wants to live longer, both according to natural processes. Why should the complex "want to live as a seeming whole" process matter more than the crystal's comparatively simple process? The fact that it does "matter more" TO those human pieces, and inescapably so, simply is a feature of the process itself. And why should the human things' additional and quite bizarre "want to use words correctly" process add any importance either, particularly when the human things refuse to admit what that process indicates about their being part of a whole?

Or so thinks "a" "person" named Carl Eric Scott, born 1967 A.D., procrastinating his tax-work.

Therein the real truth is revealed. Bolivia hasn’t granted any new rights to the earth, and neither would this U.N. treaty. The new legal rights are for “activist and other groups, including the state.” The power of the state expands, inevitably shrinking humans’ ability to exercise our own rights.