The MOTH Festival of Ideas drew ideators of all kinds to New York University Law School last week. There were scientists, lawyers, artists, and at least a few biomimics.
The call was simple: come together to discuss perspectives and pathways through the issues of humans recognizing more-than-human rights.
The Biomimicry Institute took up that call and I presented a paper Dave Hutchins (Technical Program Director at the Institute), and I wrote, titled “Recognizing the Inherent Rights of Nature: A Biomimetic Approach.”
The daytime sessions involved three rooms of about 20 scholars each presenting papers and offering deeply engaged and collaborative questions and feedback. In the evening, impassioned calls for compassion were punctuated by readings and recitations by poets, whose hoots and howls carried as much meaning and power as their words.
The biomimetic approach we brought to the table was to ask “how does nature handle infractions of one species against the inherent rights of another species?” We emphasized rights as being inherent to make clear that rights cannot really be granted by any one. If we simply want to try to force better behavior by writing laws, we can do that. But if we want people to change their behavior and decision making towards other species, they need to understand the rights of other species as an expression of a fuller understanding of the underlying principles behind the concepts of human rights.
What are those rights? Referring to the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that led to the (famously flawed) foundation of the (slavery-tolerating) laws of the young United States, it’s clear that animals have life, can experience liberty or captivity, and do pursue happiness (and avoid displeasure).
If this is an accurate view of inherent rights in nature, we should be able to observe such natural law at work. Biomimicry provides us with a framework for examining how these rights are handled throughout the rest of the natural world––how they are practiced, how they are defended, and what penalties are imposed on those who infringe upon them.
Because of the actions of various species in the presence of predators, we can argue that in the inter species community, there is significant shunning of and social cost paid by predatory species. Upon their approach, members of prey species flee, give warning, act aggressively, berate with harsh vocalizations, and encourage the departure of others from the vicinity. This could be seen as a form of ostracization, which may be considered a fair cost for the taking of life by that predatory species.
If this form of inter-species calculation is correct, then by significantly altering many environments, and now suffering from the loss of resources due to the destruction of those environments, humans are merely paying the appropriate cost for the behaviors that we have adopted, and in which case we may consider it a fair trade or just penalty. Or we may decide these are costs that we do not wish to pay, and that we need to take those chidings to heart and consider alternative action plans to be in better social standing with our fellow community members.
Starting from this biomimetic framework of detecting and evaluating existing interspecies practices around the recognition and defense of more-than-human rights can help to ensure our human codifications around them are appropriate, consistent, and understandable, and that people find them naturally convincing in their fairness.
Andrew Howley is the Chief Editor at the Biomimicry Institute, and your guide through the vast collection of materials at AskNature. He’s spent the last few years at the Institute commissioning and curating an ever-growing body of stories of life’s innovations and adaptations.
Learn more about Andrew, and the rest of the Biomimicry Institute team here.
