On the one hand, all things in nature are organically combined to form a harmonious unity with sound evolutionary ability; On the other hand, the grace of the goddess Gaia (the goddess of the earth in ancient Greek mythology) benefits everything, and everything exists and develops as a member of this same body. As one of them, human beings stand out from the natural competition of natural selection. Under the guidance of their own reason, they constantly know the world, and at the same time they begin the process of conquering, controlling and occupying the world. People pretend to be the masters of the world and regard nature as their own. Especially since the industrial revolution, human conquest has made great strides, but the disasters that followed have emerged one after another. Nature has given us a few loud slaps, and he wants rational human beings to reflect on what they have done. No matter how great the power of human beings is, it is beyond the power of nature that created human beings (otherwise energy will not be conserved). He asked human beings to lower their arrogant heads and pursue their own happiness as a humble person. Can natural objects become the subject of legal relations? The so-called subject of legal relationship is the holder of certain rights and the undertaker of certain obligations in legal relationship. In the human legal system, when it comes to subjects, we naturally think of people, natural persons, legal persons and other organizations without legal personality, and of course the state is also indispensable. In addition to real natural persons, the so-called legal persons and unincorporated organizations are all legal fictions. Among them, the legal personality of a legal person is based on its property. It can be said that without it, there is no personality. Therefore, if the company is insolvent, it will go bankrupt and disappear from the household registration book (industrial and commercial registration) (legal term is cancellation). For some funds and consortia, there is not even a person (natural person) inside, but a sum of money legally becomes a person. Visible, in a certain sense, property can become the subject of human legal relations. What about natural things? If a bird sues a person or a company, if a kitten or a puppy can inherit it, and if a monkey can pay taxes, you will definitely think it is a fantasy and absurd. Why? Because in our concept, law is used to adjust the relationship between people, and things, including animals and plants, have always been the object of legal relationship. However, this is not entirely the case. In the United States, there have been such absurd things. Although there have been constant discussions and controversies in the society and academic circles, some advanced people have begun to reflect on whether natural objects can become the subject of legal relations after nature has slapped arrogant human beings again and again. In China, the view of nature, epistemology, outlook on life and ethics were always integrated in ancient philosophy. China's ancient ethics has a strong color of natural environment, such as the unity of heaven and man, the correspondence between heaven and man, the unity of heaven and man, Taoist thought, etc., all of which contain strong ecological ethics. The difference is that there are few environmental thoughts in western ethics for thousands of years. They emphasize spiritual improvement, attach importance to the other side of the world and despise the real world. Since the modern industrial revolution, the development of science and technology has made westerners have the ambition to conquer nature and everything, and the ensuing environmental problems have aroused people's reflection. At the same time, due to the macro-development of science and technology, environmental science reveals the impact of human beings on the ecosystem and the root causes of the crisis brought by environmental pollution and destruction of natural resources to human beings and all life forms. Westerners began to think about the relationship between human beings and the natural environment, the earth and the universe. Accordingly, environmental ethics and ecological ethics with the inherent rights of nature as the value orientation came into being. Traditionally, there has always been anthropocentrism in people's minds, which holds that human beings are superior to other lower organisms and have wisdom and spirituality that animals and plants do not have. They are the darling of God, the master of the world and the center of the universe. All people's thinking and behavior are based on anthropocentrism. Generally speaking, people consider the value of the environment from the perspective of human social and economic utilization, and there are various natural things. The so-called ownership includes four powers: possession, use, income and disposal. Natural objects are only objects that the object subject can manipulate freely in people's value system. It can be said that in the face of human conquest, natural objects have only obligations but no rights. Under the guidance of the ethical concept based on human interests, human beings pretend to be supreme people and try to control and transform nature with their own will. There is no modern so-called environmental law in the resulting legal system. In the west, in the legal system originated from Roman law, the property law in its developed civil law system is a law that specifically stipulates how people possess and control all kinds of things, and all natural things are just wealth in people's eyes. There is no sophisticated civil law system in ancient Chinese law as in the west, but is it the land of kings in the world? Are the status of natural objects basically the same on the shore of land? The content of environment and natural resources in ancient Chinese and foreign laws is only to protect people's property. With the continuous development of human society, environmental problems have gradually emerged. Engels once had a classic judgment that we should not be too intoxicated with our victory over nature. Every time such a victory, nature will retaliate against us. Every victory did achieve our expected results in the first step, but it produced completely different and unexpected effects in the second and third steps, and the first result was often cancelled. Residents of Mesopotamia, Greece, Asia Minor and other places cut down all the forests in order to get cultivated land, but they never dreamed that these places had become barren today. Since the modern industrial revolution, with the progress of human conquest, the revenge of nature has intensified. Industrialization, urbanization, population explosion, resource consumption and abuse of science and technology have led to endless bitter fruit. While chewing bitterness, people are constantly realizing that nature has its own will. In the face of natural will, human power is always so weak. It turns out that no matter how powerful human beings are, they can't jump out of the curse of nature. Man is only a part of nature. As a result, the thoughts in the minds of modern ethicists are also turning, and concepts such as animal rights, natural rights and human responsibility for the environment are gradually emerging. Thousands of years of traditional humanistic views have been challenged, and a new environmental ethics of ecological interest centrism has emerged. Eppens, the pioneer of western environmental ethics, discussed the anthropocentrism hypothesis in the paper "Ethical Relationship between Man and Animals" in 1994, and criticized the human conquest of the earth described in the creation of Christianity. A Leopold, praised by modern Americans as the father of environmental ethics, put forward the land ethics thought in his book Shaxiang Yearbook. He pointed out that the individual is a member of the * * * body composed of various interacting parts, and land ethics is to change the position of human beings in the * * * body from the role of conqueror to an equal member of this * * * body. R.F. Nash, a modern environmental ethicist, pointed out in The Rights of Nature that ethics should change from the concept that nature is the exclusive property of human beings, and expand its concern to animals, plants and rocks, and then to the general nature or environment. Ethical rights should also be developed from the natural rights limited to human beings to the rights that constitute natural elements or all natural rights. In his view, the ethical thought of human beings started from the dominant position of human beings over plants and animals in Genesis. Through the historical process of the development of human thoughts, the environmental ethical thought of equality among all living things (human beings, animals, plants and inanimate objects) was formed. Although these ideas still have some limitations and controversies, they undoubtedly have a great shock and influence on people's ideas and behaviors. Since modern times, environmentalism and greenism have flourished, and environmental legislation in various countries has been gradually valued and continuously developed and improved. /kloc-from the middle of the 0/8th century to the beginning of the 20th century, public health and natural resources protection were the main tasks; From the early 20th century to the 1960s, pollution prevention and living environment protection were the main tasks; After the 1970s, it began to move towards all-round environmental protection, that is, comprehensive environmental legislation. In addition, environmental legislation is increasingly international. The United Nations and other specialized international environmental organizations play a very important role in the development of international environmental law, and countries are increasingly aware of environmental issues from the height of all mankind and the whole planet. In international law, the norm of not causing serious harm to human environment has risen to the height of international mandatory law. Of course, so far, natural objects are still difficult to become the main body of legal relations in the human legal system, but this does not mean that there will be no breakthrough. When some people's criminal behavior destroys the living environment of birds, can birds take them to court for justice? When a lonely and helpless old man spends his old age with a lovely puppy, can he leave his legacy to the puppy? A dry monkey can finish the work assigned by its owner well without hiring another labor force. Do monkeys have to pay taxes? In the absurd things that happened in the United States, there are indeed examples of pets inheriting inheritance, and the tax bureau did try to tax a dried monkey, and the lawsuit of birds did go to court. In particular, the lawsuit of the bird has aroused great repercussions. Some people say that children are not fish, and birds have neither the ability to mean nor the ability to act. Who will represent the bird in this lawsuit? Some people say that this is all a trick for a group of insidious wizards (lawyers) to make money for themselves. In fact, if we want to question the correct ability of natural things by their boring ability and behavioral ability, we can make an inhuman but consistent analogy. What is the essential difference between a natural thing that is at least a living thing and a vegetative person or a mental patient who has completely lost his meaning and ability to act? More importantly, as an organic part of nature, natural objects have the right to maintain the self-coordination and self-evolution ability of the whole nature, which is consistent with the fundamental interests of all mankind. It is untenable to oppose the rights of natural objects only from the perspective of litigation and legal technology. The rights of incapacitated people can be represented, but why not the rights of natural objects? If we insist on asking children if they are fish, I am afraid that the foundation of many existing legal systems will be passively shaken. Moreover, based on the consistency of interests, anyone who cares about environmental protection and is enthusiastic about public welfare can claim rights to natural objects. This may have the same effect as public interest litigation, but it has deeper and more grandiose reasons, which can stimulate the minds of arrogant and greedy people. Besides, is it necessary to worry that lawyers will become insidious wizards? Compensation for claiming birds' rights can be used to purify the air, control sewage, plant trees and grass, and so on. It's not just birds that benefit. Won't the singing of birds bring you a sweet smile? There is no irreconcilable contradiction between bird singing and human eating. When our law reaches this level, perhaps we can say: This is really a civilized society, not only human, but also natural.