A Mastodon poll is linked to the title.

  • activistPnkOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    My early thought was: how can energy be a human right when you have people living remote and far from the grid?

    Suppose Alice and Bob both need an organ transplant. Only one viable organ is available. In that case, it is /impossible/ to protect the human right to live for both people. But we do not say “welp, guess we have to scrap the right to live as a human right”. We maintain the right to live as a human right even though protecting that right is impossible in some situations. If an ER doc decides to save Alice and let Bob die and he gets dragged into court for violating Bob’s human rights, the doc obviously has a strong defense that he was forced. The other human rights violation is that the two people were not treated as equals. The defense would be that if you let them both die to treat them as equals, the right to live was denied in more cases than needed.

    So w.r.t. energy, we could still declare energy is a human right (or claim that it inherently follows from other declared rights) despite the impossibility of serving everyone.