First!

There has to be a test post in here somewhere just to make sure people can READ this shit. So I'm doin' it up like a M-Fin' boss. I might even put a picture in because I can. I think I will. Check that shit out. Put a picture it. I'm pretty proud of myself, if I do say so myself. And I do. I was going to go copy-past a bunch of crap in here to fill in, but I was feeling too lazy to look for it, which is funny because typing all this crap up takes more time. I HAVE AN IDEA, I'll post some shit I wrote up for my Philosophy class.

James W. Nickel and Eduardo Viola’s main point in their essay “Integrating Environmental and Human Rights” was that environmentalist and human rights activists should work together because they can both benefit from the success of the other. Much of the short essay is spent covering the goals of environmentalist and how that particular goal can be supportive of the human rights activists, and vice versa. I agree with Nickel and Viola that environmentalists and human rights activists should work together and in the rest of the essay I will summarize their points and include my own opinion on them.

The first point Nickel and Viola cover is the right to a “safe and healthy environment” (Textbook, 472). According to them, this argument is an environmentalist movement that will help human rights movements, and in fact already is. In the essay they state, “James W Nickel has defended a narrower right to a sage environment, focusing on threats to human life and health from technological and industrial processes and from the disposal of sewage and wastes.” (Textbook, 472). It is important that the right to a safe environment be defended this way for it to support both the environmentalist movement as well as the human rights movement. The very reasoning for Nickel arguing environmental health this way is because it will help to have the right supported by both parties. Nickel and Viola list several countries, Honduras, South Korea, Portugal, and Brazil, that all have some sort of “environmental health and safety” previsions in their constitutions. I agree with the importance of arguing the right for environmental health and safety this way because it helps it to be supported by both parties, and because I believe it will help the movement gain more support from other parties as well. This reason is based off pragmatic reasoning since it puts the emphasis on humans, which is the species that is making the decisions.