MEDIUM
2023
00:06:23 min
ef-natasha
Film still from MEDIUM.
The law, in its modern iteration, is a man-made concept.
The idea that we as a society tacitly agree to live in accordance with a system of rules, which themselves stem from a mixture of ambiguous historical and political origins too far removed from the day-to-day lives of most of the people in our society to ever concern themselves with trying to trace, is, of course, an entirely man-made idea.
Most of the time, this idea is exceedingly helpful – if I do say so myself, as a legal professional.
But sometimes it results in things being thrown out of balance.
The natural world lives in accordance with the laws of nature. The human world, as if it was something entirely different, lives in accordance with the laws of humans.
I catch myself thinking, whilst watching MEDIUM: what would a flower think of the laws of humans? It would probably find them odd, to say the least.
Because the laws are man-made, they are centred around the needs of humans.
Contract law governs obligations contained in agreements (between humans – or groups of humans, like companies and corporations).
Tort law is for situations where a human is harmed, or otherwise wronged, and allows humans to receive appropriate redress.
Criminal law sets out acts of humans that are perceived (by fellow humans) to be particularly threatening or harmful – so much so that they amount to crimes.
Public law is for the relationship between humans and governments (which are, of course, made up of other humans).
What of environmental law, then? Well, at a very basic level, it governs how humans interact with the environment.
So, even when it comes to nature, human interests have to be part of the equation.
There is, in the world of legal thinking, an idea that nature (rivers, animals, mountains, forests, land…) has rights, which are distinct and independent from the rights of humans, and the rights of any grouping of humans imaginable (government, corporation, charity).
This idea is called ‘the rights of nature’ – and represents a more holistic way of thinking about our planet and our place in it.
But in the world of the law, which is made by humans, this idea is considered to be a radical concept – at least for now.
That’s because the law is built on the assumption that nature (resources, land, animals – all of it) is property.
Well, our property is literally on fire. So what do we do now?
The natural world lives in accordance with the laws of nature. The human world, as if it somehow transcended the planet that the natural world inhabits, lives in accordance with the laws of humans.
Well, the planet is literally on fire. So what do we do now?
What does observing the natural world make you feel?
I must confess, these days I find it hard to comprehend that I inhabit the same world as the stunning rainforests, the vast deserts, the colourful tiny poisonous frogs, the mercurial cheetahs, the gentle elephants, the bustling coral reefs, the deep lakes, the unstoppable rivers.
It’s as if they were aliens, as if we were observing them from a totally different realm - much in the same way as the petals in MEDIUM are presented to the viewer as otherworldly forms.
Well, that realm is on fire – our realm is on fire. So what do we do now?
How do we rebuild that connection?
How do we re-establish the feeling of being part of the planet, part of the ecosystem?
How do we stop imagining that we were somehow separate from it?
I’m not sure environmental law has the answers. But then again, I’m not sure anything does.
Written by EF,
Legal Officer at an environmental NGO