Do you support the idea of giving fetuses legal rights and using this to sue the mother?* After all, once we give human legal rights to rivers quite a lot of the typical arguments become irrelevant in the other context.

Ultimately, people support this absurd idea because they like the results, but the abuse of the legal system is going to reverberate. I don't think you'd like the results of not having a functioning legal system.

* Don't think merely of the typical pro-life/pro-choice wrangling. Think of suing the mother for bad lifestyle decisions which may or may not affect the child once born. So many opportunities for a creative lawyer.

I am familiar with the "slippery slope to utter catastrophe" argument, but I don't really see it as applying here. Passing laws to give rivers corporate personhood won't automatically create rights for imaginary babies (which is how anti-abortion types typically perceive embryos). And patriarchal types are already working to subjugate women just fine without waiting for this.

I intentionally took a radical (but possible) example. A more related likely result is NIMBYs using the precedent to give all other ecosystems 'personhood' and strangling housing development in lawsuits. Now that I consider this, judges could use other creative readings of corporate law to actually weaken environmental law (can we use eminent domain on the river? Does it have a natural monopoly on water supply and we need to apply anti-trust?).

Ultimately this is an improper hack, suborning the law for political ends. There are some evils that can justify even a take-no-prisoners approach. But better protection of river ecosystems? Are there really no better ways to achieve that?

Again, I'm familiar with the "slippery slope to utter catastrophe" line of argument. But here you're not even really making it other than to handwave at the possibility. I get that you don't like this. But all law is a political fiction for political ends, so your horror is not something I share.

If you do have a better way to solve it, I encourage you to give it a try. Let me know how it goes.

Corporations are groups of people that behave at least somewhat similar to people, nothing about rivers allows analogy to a person.

E.g. do i harm a river when throw a bottle into it, or do i give her a toy to happily play with? It surely looks happy carrying trash, after all she often takes trees and boulders by herself.

The word "corporation", even in the legal sense includes things like towns. In a slightly broader sense, it includes things like provinces and countries. So why could it not include something like the community of people who live by and or use water from the river?

Now I can see all sorts of detailed problems with this (for example people upstream might have opposite interests from downstream, so the collective is not a coherent person-like entity). But I don't see a fundamental difference between this kind of corporation and that of the existing kinds.

Your suggestion is not problematic per se, but it's not the one advanced in the article. There are some very significant differences.

First, if it's the people who have the rights and not the river, than they can waive their rights as well. It's quite possible to imagine people who prefer development to a pristine river - this was the choice of every developing country after all.

Second, would the people have standing if the developments in question do not affect them or affect them positively? (e.g. diverting the river downstream, or drying up some swamps to halt some malaria-like disease).

The result is the giving communities those legal rights won't do for the purposes of those advancing this doctrine - many communities' political representatives will just waive the rights immediately, perhaps in exchange for some investment or another.

The purpose of this legal doctrine seems to be to stop developments even if the elected authorities agree to them, so they have to give the rights to something which can't waive them or trade them for something else.

Even if you could get one lawyer/rights group to agree a certain development is worth it, there would always be some other group ready to advance a claim in the "river's" name.

Both of these are perceptual choices you're making. In one case you've chosen to see the analogy as real. In the other case you're refusing to consider the analogy, and then casting your failure as some sort of universal ("nothing... allows"). But since other people clearly can see analogies, it's not universal; it's your preference leaking out.

I do not refuse to consider the analogy, after reading the article and all the comments here, i didn't find any logical ground for the analogy. Animistic religions believing that river has a spirit, or saying that river represents the group of people who live nearby (but who obviously have conflicting interesting) do not sound convincing to me. If you have any better arguments for the validity of the analogy, i'd be happy to hear them.

Analogies don't really have logical validity. They are a way of priming intuition. I agree it doesn't sound convincing to you; I'm just saying that isn't indicative of anything more than your reaction.

I am saying that any person who would use logic to analyze the proposed analogy and its consequences would see that it is absurd, independently from feelings and intuition. A normal reply to this would be a chain of arguments showing that in some case the analogy is giving a useful result.

Are you saying that logic is just "my reaction", and it is not any more valid than feelings?

I have already said I think it's an adequate analogy. Others clearly have too. Your belief that your personal thoughts are universal and infallible is your belief. It's not one I found persuasive at the beginning, and less so the more you insist on it.

You said that you think it is adequate, but you didn't say why you think that. I do not think that my personal, or anyone else's thoughts are universal or infallible, but i think it is possible to find common understanding using logic.

> It's not one I found persuasive at the beginning, and less so the more you insist on it

I didn't add anything to my initial argument to make it more persuasive, i merely asked you to tell your arguments in favor of the analogy, as i hoped you may have something more interesting to say than "your thoughts are your thoughts and my thoughts are mine" which is a tautological truth.