The “nature rights” movement has infused environmentalism with unscientific mysticism. In spite of — or perhaps because of — that, its influence continues to grow as geological features like rivers, glaciers, and a mountain have been declared in law to be living persons endowed with rights. Adding to the threat, elite institutions such as law societies, science and medical journals, and grandees at the U.N. are increasingly embracing the cause.

In the latest example, Cambridge University’s new policy journal Public Humanities will devote an issue to promoting the rights of nature. From the call for papers:

We urgently need to change the way we relate to nature. One of the ways to do so is to consider nature as a subject of rights, as a living entity that has the right to exist, to be respected, to fulfil its natural role without arbitrary interference and to be repaired when its rights are violated. The constitution of Ecuador, for the first time in the history of modern law, has recognized nature as a subject of rights and also calls it Pacha Mama (Mother Earth) [actually, the Incan earth goddess]. Dozens more countries have followed recognizing the rights to nature through sentences, laws, or resolutions. The views of nature as a being is expanding in a variety of realms from the arts, to philosophy and the natural sciences.

Living organisms — flora, fauna, microbes, and humans — certainly permeate nature. But nature itself is not alive. Air is part of nature. Granite outcroppings are part of nature. So are volcanoes. So is sand. The Cambridge University Press’s call for learned discourse to boost the rights of nature is therefore predicated on blatantly unscientific premises straight out of Gaia theory that holds that the Earth is a living being. The mind boggles.

Moreover, the movement is a direct threat to human thriving. Consider what would happen if we were prohibited from interfering with nature’s “natural role.” It would throttle our ability to prosper from the use of natural resources no matter how responsibly extracted.

That’s the point, of course. Proof of this can be seen in the subject requests the editors wish to engage:

How does [sic] the philosophies, cultures and lifeways of indigenous peoples contribute to the understanding of nature as a subject of rights or as a living being? . . .

How do indigenous worldviews deepen the rights of nature?

Again with the wisdom of indigenous people! Nothing against such cultures, but they are pre-industrial, pre-electrical, and pre-scientific. Even the methods deployed by most advanced indigenous nations that had big cities would be unable to support modern industrial economies, transportation infrastructures, communications networks, sanitation methods, etc.

Indeed, “nature rights” would stymie the extraction of resources that make modernity possible, as indicated by one of the subjects to be discussed:

Local resistance to extractivism or initiatives against oil, mining, industrial agriculture, and the lessons learned for other communities in resistance worldwide

And it is anti-capitalist:

What is the relationship between capitalism and rights of nature?

What are the most notable characteristics of the Anthropocene and its effects on nature?

Notice, there is no mention of exploring the poor environmental records of Marxist societies. Indeed, to my knowledge, nature-rights advocates have never criticized the abysmal environmental records of communist dictatorships.

So, why is this particular call for papers important? Because it comes from one of the most important universities in the world. Because it illustrates how deeply earth-religion mysticism has permeated mainstream environmental advocacy, and indeed, how the just cause of reasonably protecting nature has been co-opted into a radical international movement to subvert Western civilization and undermine Judeo-Christian moral principles based on human exceptionalism. Radical “it will never happen here” policies are all too easily transformed from the fringe to acceptance among the mainstream elite.

Most people still don’t take “nature rights” seriously because it is clearly irrational. But that’s a huge mistake. Movement activists are committed to their cause, which is advancing at an accelerating pace. Unless those who have the power to block this movement start paying attention, neo-pagan mysticism could win the day.