Corporations are people. People work for corporations and hold roles. Lakes, rivers support people. Lakes can't sue but people could.
Corporations are entities made up of people that have incorporated. Corporations are therefore supported by people. If the people aren't there, a corporation will fall.
Forests don't need people, people need forests. To me, that would make them more important to protect than a corporation. For this reason, suing on behalf of a river seems quite reasonable to me if a corporation can, too.
No, corporations are legal persons created by law, with regard to which which other people (natural, non-natural legal, or a mix) are granted certain rights and privileges, by law.
They aren't made up of people they are made up of laws.
Who can claim to speak for a forrest and not be mere sophists? A hunter, hiker, and a lumberjack all have different interests in a forest. Unless it is privately owned in entirety there is nobody who can claim standing unless the standards are anarchic enough that literally anyone can sock-puppet the entity.
Citation needed, your orders of magnitude are probably off.
If we literally burned every tree that probably would be catastrophic, but most large corporate entities have created more net good than a given forest or lake.
We rely on corporations for food and comfort, we rely on forests for ... maybe oxygen? But from a rationalist perspective, the ideal would be to identify how much forest cover is required and then convert the rest of the land to productive use.
People don't choose to live in forests and visit cities. They choose to live in cities and visit forests. Cities are literally 100% corporate supported, from the infrastructure under the ground to to the tops of the skyscrapers. As far as I'm concerned, people who don't live in cities are disadvantaged by their lack of access to corporate support.
"Forests don't need people". They are firmly rooted here since Devonian age. We came much, much, later. This part is pretty obvious.
"People need forests". Well, maybe not all people. Some people live in the deserts and never see a forest. Some live of goats that graze shrubs, other can rely on their fine petroleum resources, a great substance that keeps alive all cities in the world, and is made of old fores... oh, wait.
You certainly could build a skyscrapper without wood, but not without steel beams. To made steel beams you need molten steel, and to be able to molt steel you need a big bonfire made of carbon that is another thing made with... forests
You still could have a not so modern, old style city. They are made of wood.
No forests? Say bye to the tires of your car (and mountain bike)
And many cities are built around water courses, that is often another forest subproduct...
There is also the not minor issue of the oxygen, of course.
¿Could people live without forests? Yes probably, but our long term survival would be much more fragile.
> most large corporate entities have created more net good than a given forest or lake
"net good?" Perhaps, avoiding the strictly philosophical, you intend to invoke an economic argument wherein the market value of forests or lakes is defined within the bounds of the free market? Such that "large corporate entities'" high economic valuation is "better" than that of a forest? In this context, given that the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest outside of Seattle (many trees, many lakes) is valued at $1 Trillion [0], this seems like a bit of a reach. But, even then, why make the comparison, especially since...
> we rely on forests for ... maybe oxygen
Wildlife habitat, drinking water filtration, CO2 sequestration, timber production, refugia against climate change, biodiversity reservoirs
Or, if you like: solitude, silence, wild spaces, discovering one's place in an improbable universe
> from a rationalist perspective, the ideal would be to identify how much forest cover is required and then convert the rest of the land to productive use.
"Productive Use" is a dangerous phrase. There's much to say, but I'll let someone else say it.
In an essay ("The Trouble with Wilderness" [1]) by William Cronon, which I believe you all would enjoy reading, after he finishes dismantling the myth of wilderness in America, he writes: "one of my own most important environmental ethics is that people should always be conscious that they are part of the natural world, inextricably tied to the ecological systems that sustain their lives. Any way of looking at nature that encourages us to believe we are separate from nature––as wilderness tends to do––is likely to reinforce environmentally irresponsible behavior."
Further: "Learning to honor the wild––learning to remember and acknowledge the autonomy of the other––means striving for critical self-consciousness in all of our actions. It means the deep reflection and respect must accompany each act of use, and means too that we must always consider the possibility of non-use. It means looking at the part of nature we intend to turn toward our own ends and asking whether we can use it again and again and again—sustainably—without its being diminished in the process."
> As far as I'm concerned, people who don't live in cities are disadvantaged by their lack of access to corporate support.
As far as I'm concerned, people who do live in cities are disadvantaged by their constant immersion in a world where perverse incentives for corporations (shareholder expectations, government contracts, CEO salaries) define the very environs in which a city-dweller spends their days, rather than the natural world which cradled humanity for hundreds of thousands of years prior to Google and Facebook, to Bechtel and Skanska.
[0]: https://www.wilderness.org/articles/blog/what-intact-forest-... [1]: https://www.williamcronon.net/writing/Trouble_with_Wildernes...
It would be like saying Amazon is worth 100 trillion because of all of the time and money it has saved society.
You're not wrong, but even from a purely philosophical perspective it is not at all obvious that solitude is a greater good than the structures that make up human civilisation - I won't make an argument that forests are bad, but I'm perhaps more making the point that "forests are more important than corporations and deserve greater legal protection" is an opinion that stands in defiance of political reality, and is only supportable with some specific and frankly fringe definitions of good. I'm pretty sure that any definition of good that privileges human wellbeing over animals is going to agree that corporations are a greater good than forests and lakes (notwithstanding that we obviously need some forests and lakes, and that I'm not about to start buying property next to a polluted lake).
We have pretty good polling on what people value in practice. There are people who honestly care more about forests, but they are a minority to the people who downright fear solitude and want more community and human built environment. Biodiversity in particular is a lovely idea until it meets humans in practice, where we actively choose to extinguish it wherever we gather in groups. Very much a NIMBY phenomenon.
> As far as I'm concerned, people who do live in cities are disadvantaged by their constant immersion in a world where perverse incentives for corporations...
The better hospitals, places of higher learning, food and entertainment tend to be in cities. It is quite hard to argue that those things are less important than harking back to the cradle of the natural world that was awful and primitive. A society built promoting the natural world over human endevour would be horrific, barbaric and very hard to defend as more moral or 'good' in any meaningful sense.
People can sue, for damages to the people, not to the lake.