Rights for Antarctica

Arguing that Antarctica should have "rights" and be designated a "person".

I support legal protection for Antarctica, enforced by a world body which has the necessary power to achieve the goal. But it is absurd to treat Antarctica, or a river, or a forest, as a person. Exercise of the rights of a person requires will, but that is something that neither Antarctica, nor a river, nor a forest actually has.

Does Antarctica wish to remain ice-covered, or would it prefer to melt the ice and have forests with fruit trees? If Antarctica were a person, it could have a preference and we would be obliged to ask what that is.

We should protect Antarctica as a major part of a climatic system, whose stability is crucial for that system. That is even more important to protect than one person.

</li>