The Ecuadorian forest granted legal personhood

The whole notion of nature as legal personhood is frankly logically incoherent buzzword garbage from people appropriating legal terminology which they don't understand. Like all of the idiots who think abolishing corporate personhood would be a good idea, up until all of their contracts break and they are unable to sue a non-entity?

What is stopping the asinine concept from from being used to argue that, no the area really would prefer if it didn't have all of those pesky trees infesting it and digging its roots in, or that it would prefer to be pretty from mining run-off?