national review

More than 30 U.S. cities have adopted nature rights ordinances, mostly to prevent fracking. And now in the recent election, 57 percent of voters in Everett, Wash., granted rights to a geological feature, specifically, the Snohomish River watershed. From the initiative:

The Snohomish River Watershed possesses the rights to exist, regenerate, and flourish, which shall include the right to naturally recharge, the right to naturally flow, the right to water quality necessary to provide habitat for native plants and animals, the right to provide clean water, and the right to restoration. The Snohomish River Watershed shall also have the right to be free from activities.

This is anti-enterprise — and anti-human — since it waters down (pardon the pun) the crucial legal principle of rights to a ridiculous degree. Indeed, with a river granted rights, we re-dignify rights into a concept that thwarts, rather than protects, human freedom.

The bioethics movement has always had power ambitions beyond wrestling with health policy and medical ethics. Indeed, for years, the mainstreamers have been seeking to interpose themselves into the global-warming controversy.

The Hastings Center — the beating heart of the bioethics establishment — has been leading the charge to so expand the sector’s influence. The center just published a call to arms to fight global warming by a medical ethics professor emeritus, advocating that bioethicists be at the center of the climate-change fray.

After praising the inflation-causing spending of the mendaciously named Inflation Reduction Act as now set in stone — time will tell — the author rallies the bioethicists troops to the great cause. From “Now What? Bioethics and Mitigating Climate Disasters“:

We might well ask: Now what? Is there a way to make a difference over the next four years? And, especially, does bioethics have a role in this effort?

I argue that there is important work ahead and bioethics should be squarely in the middle of it. The work is less in federal policy and more in public persuasion. The role for bioethics is to bring global warming and its catastrophic health consequences into focus as an existential crisis neither party can ignore.

The “nature rights” project — and its ancillaries — keeps advancing, mostly ignored by those who could stop it in its tracks with legislation declaring that only humans and our associations and juridical entities have legal standing in courts or enforceable rights. Now, a “whale rights” project has commenced, pushed pro bono by a big international law firm, Simmons and Simmons. From the Legal Cheek story: These frameworks centre on the concept of a “legal person” — an entity acknowledged as having “standing” within the judicial system. Traditionally, this status has been reserved for humans, community organisations, and corporations. Granting this designation to whales represents a groundbreaking shift, acknowledging the value of non-human life and redefining how the law engages Read More ›

San Francisco was once a conservative city. Oh, sure, it had its bohemian side. The Beats of the ’50s were at home in North Beach, and Harry Bridges, the suspected communist who served for years as head of the longshoremen’s union, had a definite influence. But for the most part, San Francisco was well within the cultural mainstream. Indeed, the city was so staid that the Republican Party’s nominee for mayor won landslides in 1955 and 1959, and the GOP nominated the archconservative Barry Goldwater as its presidential candidate from the Cow Palace in 1964.

Then, San Francisco changed. Radically. In 1964, the University of California, Berkeley, a few miles across the bay, became the center of the “free speech” movement. Civil rights and then militant anti–Vietnam War advocacy found great sympathy. The Haight-Ashbury neighborhood became a hippy haven and the focus of a growing drug culture. The gay-rights movement sprang energetically out of the Castro District, and the once predominately Italian working-class neighborhood was transformed into a radical front of the sexual revolution. By the 1980s, the term “San Francisco values” — wielded by conservatives to describe the cultural and political radicalism of the Bay Area — had turned the city into something of a national joke.

Over the years, policies enacted by the city’s ever more extreme progressive leaders slowly destroyed San Francisco. I lived in and around the city for almost 25 years, starting in 1992, and saw the decline happen in real time. It broke my heart.

Why do you oppose euthanasia, Wesley? If people want to die, we should help them die. No. And here’s an individual example explaining just one reason why. A deeply depressed woman was about to be lethally injected in the Netherlands — but changed her mind just in the nick of time. From the New York Post story: Romy, 22, who suffered from clinical depression, eating disorders, and anorexia due to childhood abuse, made the heartbreaking decision to end her life in accordance with legislation in the Netherlands, which allows for euthanasia under certain circumstances. She decided not to go ahead with it at the very last moment. After turning 18, Romy campaigned for four years for her right to die via voluntary assisted dying Read More ›

Our betters among the elites are increasingly embracing nature rights and its derivatives. Latest example: An editorial published by the World Economic Forum pushes “forest rights.” The Earth is burning and the fault is — ta-da! — capitalism! From, “Reimagining Capitalism — Giving Forests Legal Rights”: Capitalism, of course has, in many aspects, brought about incredible progress. Industrialization and globalization have propelled advances in life expectancy, education, and social welfare. But does this narrative still hold true? For the first time, GDP diverges from well-being indices in many nations. This exposes a system that not only engineers its own demise, but threatens humanity and the natural environment. Has this unnamed editorialist ever been to China? That anti-capitalist utopia has air Read More ›

Cratering birth rates are threatening a “demographic winter,” according to a recent Wall Street Journal story, causing government leaders to believe that increasing the number of babies born has become “a matter of national urgency.” But the ever woke New England Journal of Medicine is having none of it. Instead, it published a bitter piece castigating “pro-natalism” that even deploys the ridiculous The Handmaid’s Tale cliché to make its points. From “Blessed be the Fruit” (citations omitted): “Pronatalism” is an attitude or policy approach that encourages childbearing and elevates the role of parenthood, specifically for women, as a necessary and positive societal contribution, often deliberately at the expense of women’s opportunities in education, governance, and the workforce. . . . Regardless of the stated motivations, such Read More ›

The medical/scientific intelligentsia and the political Left seemingly want every political controversy and cultural problem transformed into a public-health threat. Let us count them: Climate change, racism, gun control, a dearth of left-wing economics policies, even war. Now, a column by Michael Luo, an executive editor at the New Yorker, urges that political violence be categorized in the same way. From, “Should Political Violence be Addressed Like a Threat to Public Health?”: The principal aim of public health is prevention. It takes its scientific cues primarily from epidemiology, which studies the prevalence of diseases and their determinants to shape control strategies. In the mid-nineteen-sixties, public-health practitioners began to incorporate these methods into a nascent discipline known as injury science, taking on problems such as children falling from windows, residential fires, childhood Read More ›