Page 2 of 21
813
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.7, Issue 6, June-2020
INTRODUCTION
Human nature has not changed since the ratification of the United States Constitution in 1788 and
the Bill of Rights in 1791. But science and technology have rapidly progressed to the point of being
able to cause great human and environmental harm, even to the point of potentially making Earth
uninhabitable for life as we know it. Legal progress has lagged behind science and technology, and
currently does not provide a substantial basis to protect Americans from the consequences of
technology-based assault on human and environmental health and on the free exchange of truthful
information necessary to preserve a democratic republic.
From time to time groups have litigated based upon the Public Trust Doctrine that has evolved from
Roman law, "by the law of nature these things are common to mankind- the air, running water, the
sea and consequently the shores of the sea” [1]. But the problems in such cases typically involve
questionable locus standi [2], improperly deal with a “political issue”, may be resolvable by Congress
or the President, and/or, although not always appreciated, are based on the false doctrine of
scientific consensus [3]. The evidence and implications described below serve to demonstrate that
the present system of jurisprudence is inadequate to protect Americans from the consequences of
science-based actions concomitant with the rapid and potentially global-threatening progress of
science and technology. A more fundamental legal basis is needed.
Two hundred twenty nine years ago only the institutions of government were sufficiently powerful
to pose truly grave threats to the rights and freedom of American citizens. The Bill of Rights of the
United States Constitution obviated that threat by guaranteeing the rights of individuals and placing
limitations on state and federal governments. The Founding Fathers, however, never envisioned
that even greater threats would subsequently emerge from scientific and technological progress.
Science, and the technological developments springing therefrom, can improve the quality of life on
Earth. But, as circumstances presently exist, without fundamental legal safeguards, our individual
freedoms, the air we breathe, the water we drink, and our ability to nourish ourselves and protect
our health and the health of our families are now under great threat by deliberate, malevolent
technology-based activities by “bad actors.” The entire web of life on Earth is threatened by
disruption of the delicate balance by and between myriad biota and their environments [4, 5].
For the protection of humanity and the planetary environment in general, and American citizens in
particular, what is needed, we posit, is a set of new Constitutional Amendments that collectively
form a second Bill of Rights, a Technology Bill of Rights, to protect our freedoms, health, air, water,
agriculture, and the planetary environment from deliberate perversion and alteration. As
fundamental as the original Bill of Rights, the proposed second, Technology Bill of Rights would
guarantee the rights of individuals against technologically-based threats, and would place
limitations on the application of threat-posing technologies. Although intended for Americans, the
considerations presented are global in nature and appropriately should serve as a model for other
sovereign nations to adopt.
BAD ACTORS OF ENVIRONMENTAL DEVASTATION
Threats to the environment as a consequence of advances in technology are frequently caused or
exacerbated by human foibles, ranging from ignorance and self-interest to malice and deceit,
invariably motivated by financial gain and/or political control. In principle individuals, especially
Page 3 of 21
Herndon, J. M., & Whiteside, M. (2020). Technology Bill of Rights Needed to Protect Human and Environmental Health and the U.S. Constitutional Republic.
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(6) 812-832.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.76.8584 814
the extremely wealthy and/or those in control of powerful technologies, could cause great harm to
human and environmental health and/or pervert the mechanisms that are the basis of American
democracy. Historically, however, devastating environmental harm results from businesses acting
alone or with government and/or military entities.
Environmental harm, undertaken solely by business interests, includes familiar activities such as
producing and dispersing toxic herbicides and pesticides, accidental or purposeful release of toxic
chemicals and radioactive substances into the environment, conducting gain-of-function
experiments with potential pandemic pathogens, and introducing nano-particulates and genetically
altered organisms into the environment.
Potentially greater environmental devastation is caused by national and international governments
and/or military entities acting alone and/or together with contracted business entities. The greater
potential harm is the consequence of scale, secrecy, and the perception that government/military
activities – whatever they may be – are unaccountable to the public. That perception is a strong
argument in favor of our posited Technology Bill of Rights. In the following we describe some of the
current and potential threats to the environment and to our freedoms which illustrate the
immediate need for a Technology Bill of Rights.
FORMER TECHNOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSAULTS: DEVOID OF LEGAL BASIS; DEVOID
OF LEGAL SAFEGUARDS
Life on Earth is possible due to the nature of Earth’s composition and physical processes that afford
protection from solar radiation, and because of myriad complex interactions by and between biota
and their various environments. Any large-scale alteration of Earth’s natural environment
inevitably will have adverse consequences for life on this planet. One example of this are the global
campaigns to eradicate insect vectors of contagions that began in the 1920s, initially through
environmental application of Paris Green (the double salt of copper and arsenic) and DDT
(dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) after 1939 [6-8]. Although implemented with good intensions,
their consequences were tragic.
In 1962, Rachel Carson, in her book Silent Spring [9], warned that DDT and other pesticides not only
killed insects, but progressed up the food chain killing numerous other species. Her revelations of
the harmful consequences of DDT received favorable support from the mainstream media, including
the serialization of her book by The New Yorker magazine and a CBS Reports exposé [10], all of
which helped to spawn a modern environmental movement [11]. But over time, whether through
fear of losing donations or their tax-exempt status, or for other reasons, the environmental
movement she birthed grew to turn a blind eye to environmental trespass potentially more serious
than DDT.
Laudable intent, including for peaceful purposes, is never sufficient to justify harming the
environment. The environmental harm initially caused by widespread application of pesticides,
presumably undertaken for laudable reasons, arguably, might be attributed to ignorance of the
adverse consequences. The same cannot be said of the military’s assault on human and
environmental health. Under aegis of “national defense” the U. S. military has been quick to adopt
and test on unknowing American citizens the latest technology for use in warfare. Historical
evidence from the 1940s-1970s clearly shows the military’s blatant disregard for the environment,