Invisible Hand feels like it was made for people that already knew about the modern "rights of nature" movement—some of the dramatic challenges and creative flourishes in the documentary appears to lend itself to already opened ears. However, introducing the story with a "white devil" indigenous story gives a strong hint that the doc is not trying to win many new people over.
Nevertheless, it's great to see the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) as one of its main proponents of the movement, because from what I've read so far of the CELDF's work in Pennsylvania, Ecuador, and in other parts of the U.S., I think they are leveraging fundamentals of the Western and American spirit—pride in one's locality and the primacy of private property protection—in order to accomplish what at first appeared anti-Western, anti-American: the enhanced protection of Nature against people.
The results of compromising Nature for economic gain has shown resounding success at compromising the health of people. Because we see this cause and effect, the CELDF has helped promote a decades-old thought experiment: By enhancing the protection of Nature, can we better protect ourselves? For those who have successfully enforced the rights of nature clauses, like Ecuador in its constitution, the answer is yes. When the local community can speak for the rivers, forests, or mountains to file a suit against an offending corporation, individual, or governmental body of violating Nature's right to prosper and naturally evolve, that local community is tangentially supporting their own ability to prosper and naturally evolve without toxins or scorched earth marring their neck of the woods.
According to about 12,000 years of agricultural and civilizational biological history, a healthier Nature appears to lead to a healthier people. And up until the rights of nature movement, individuals and communities could not afford to defend themselves from those who are willing to compromise Nature and its people for short-term benefits. Let's follow the facts and make the legal system work in the favor of human beings and the living rather than decrepit systems, corporations, and governmental bodies.
Nevertheless, it's great to see the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) as one of its main proponents of the movement, because from what I've read so far of the CELDF's work in Pennsylvania, Ecuador, and in other parts of the U.S., I think they are leveraging fundamentals of the Western and American spirit—pride in one's locality and the primacy of private property protection—in order to accomplish what at first appeared anti-Western, anti-American: the enhanced protection of Nature against people.
The results of compromising Nature for economic gain has shown resounding success at compromising the health of people. Because we see this cause and effect, the CELDF has helped promote a decades-old thought experiment: By enhancing the protection of Nature, can we better protect ourselves? For those who have successfully enforced the rights of nature clauses, like Ecuador in its constitution, the answer is yes. When the local community can speak for the rivers, forests, or mountains to file a suit against an offending corporation, individual, or governmental body of violating Nature's right to prosper and naturally evolve, that local community is tangentially supporting their own ability to prosper and naturally evolve without toxins or scorched earth marring their neck of the woods.
According to about 12,000 years of agricultural and civilizational biological history, a healthier Nature appears to lead to a healthier people. And up until the rights of nature movement, individuals and communities could not afford to defend themselves from those who are willing to compromise Nature and its people for short-term benefits. Let's follow the facts and make the legal system work in the favor of human beings and the living rather than decrepit systems, corporations, and governmental bodies.